NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION IN

HUMAN INTERACTION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

±

NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION IN

HUMAN INTERACTION

EIGHTH

EDITION

Mark L. Knapp

The University of Texas at Austin

Judith A. Hall

Northeastern University

Terrence G. Horgan

University of Michigan, Flint

Australia •Brazil •Japan •Korea •Mexico •Singapore •Spain •United Kingdom •United States

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial

review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to

remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous

editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by

ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Nonverbal Communication in Human

Interaction, Eighth Edition

Mark L. Knapp, Judith A. Hall and

Terrence G. Horgan

Publisher: Monica Eckman

Development Editor: Daisuke Yasutake

Editorial Assistant: Colin Solan

Media Editor: Jessica Badiner

Brand Manager: Ben Rivera

Marketing Development Manager:

Kara Kindstrom

Rights Acquisitions Specialist:

Alexandra Ricciardi

Manufacturing Planner: Doug Bertke

Art and Design Direction, Production

Management, and Composition:

PreMediaGlobal

Cover Image: © Nancy Hall/www

.nhallclarityarts.com

herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or

by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited

to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution,

information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except

as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright

Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at

Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product,

submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to

permissionrequest@cengage.com

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012946947

ISBN-13:978-1-133-31159-1

ISBN-10:1-133-31159-8

Wadsworth

20 Channel Center Street

Boston, MA 02210

USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions

with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United

Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at:

international.cengage.com/region

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by

Nelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions, visit www.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred

online store www.cengagebrain.com

Instructors: Please visit login.cengage.com and log in to access

instructor-specific resources.

Printed in the United States of America

12345671615141312

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

BRIEF CONTENTS

PREFACE xv

PART I ANINTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION 1

CHAPTER 1Nonverbal Communication: Basic Perspectives 3

CHAPTER 2The Roots of Nonverbal Behavior 29

CHAPTER 3The Ability to Receive and Send Nonverbal Signals 59

PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT 89

CHAPTER 4The Effects of the Environment on Human Communication 91

CHAPTER 5The Effects of Territory and Personal Space on Human

Communication 123

PART III THE COMMUNICATORS 151

CHAPTER 6The Effects of Physical Characteristics on Human Communication 153

v

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR 197

CHAPTER 7The Effects of Gesture and Posture on Human Communication 199

CHAPTER 8The Effects of Touch on Human Communication 231

CHAPTER 9The Effects of the Face on Human Communication 258

CHAPTER 10 The Effects of Eye Behavior on Human Communication 295

CHAPTER 11 The Effects of Vocal Cues That Accompany Spoken Words 323

PART V COMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES 357

CHAPTER 12 Using Nonverbal Behavior in Daily Interaction 359

CHAPTER 13 Nonverbal Messages in Special Contexts 395

REFERENCES 421

NAME INDEX 493

SUBJECT INDEX 508

vi BRIEF CONTENTS

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONTENTS

PREFACE xv

PART IANINTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION 1

CHAPTER 1Nonverbal Communication: Basic Perspectives 3

Perspective 1: Defining Nonverbal Communication 8

Processing Nonverbal Information 9

Awareness and Control 10

Perspective 2: Classifying Nonverbal Behavior 10

The Communication Environment 11

The Communicators’Physical Characteristics 11

Body Movement and Position 12

Perspective 3: Nonverbal Communication in the Total

Communication Process 14

Repeating 15

Conflicting 15

Complementing 18

Substituting 19

Accenting/Moderating 19

Regulating 19

Perspective 4: Historical Trends in Nonverbal Research 21

Perspective 5: Nonverbal Communication in Everyday Life 25

Summary 27

vii

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CHAPTER 2The Roots of Nonverbal Behavior 29

The Development of Nonverbal Behavior across Evolutionary Time 31

Evidence from Sensory Deprivation 32

Evidence from Infants 37

Evidence from Twin Studies 40

Evidence from Nonhuman Primates 44

Evidence from Multicultural Studies 52

Summary 57

CHAPTER 3The Ability to Receive and Send Nonverbal Signals 59

Development and Improvement of Nonverbal Skills 61

Is It Good to Have More Accurate Knowledge of Nonverbal

Communication? 64

Measuring the Accuracy of Decoding and Encoding Nonverbal Cues 65

Standardized Tests of Decoding Ability 68

Personal Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Decoding Nonverbal Cues 71

Self-Appraisals and Explicit Knowledge of Nonverbal Cues 72

Gender 73

Age 73

General Cognitive Ability 74

Other Personal Correlates 75

Substance Abuse 77

Culture 78

Task Factors Affecting Nonverbal Decoding Accuracy 78

Characteristics of Accurate Nonverbal Senders 79

Putting Decoding and Encoding Together 82

On Being an Observer of Nonverbal Communication 83

The Fallibility of Human Perception 85

Summary 86

PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT 89

CHAPTER 4The Effects of the Environment on Human Communication 91

Perceptions of Our Surroundings 94

Perceptions of Formality 94

Perceptions of Warmth 95

Perceptions of Privacy 96

Perceptions of Familiarity 96

viii CONTENTS

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Perceptions of Constraint 96

Perceptions of Distance 96

Reacting to Environments 97

Perceptions of Time 98

The Natural Environment 100

Other People in the Environment 104

Architectural Design and Movable Objects 105

Color 108

Sound 111

Lighting 113

Movable Objects 114

Structure and Design 116

Regulating Environments and Communication 121

Summary 122

CHAPTER 5The Effects of Territory and Personal Space on Human

Communication 123

The Concept of Territoriality 123

Territoriality: Invasion and Defense 125

Density and Crowding 129

The Effects of High Density on Human Beings 131

Coping with High Density 132

Conversational Distance 133

Sex 137

Age 137

Cultural and Ethnic Background 138

Topic or Subject Matter 139

Setting for the Interaction 140

Physical Characteristics 140

Attitudinal and Emotional Orientation 140

Characteristics of the Interpersonal Relationship 141

Personality Characteristics 141

Seating Behavior and Spatial Arrangements in Small Groups 142

Leadership 143

Dominance 144

Task 144

Sex and Acquaintance 145

Introversion–Extraversion 147

Conclusion 147

Summary 148

CONTENTS ix

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

PART III THE COMMUNICATORS 151

CHAPTER 6The Effects of Physical Characteristics on Human

Communication 153

Our Body: Its General Attractiveness 154

Dating and Marriage 156

On the Job 159

Persuading Others 160

Self-Esteem 161

Antisocial Behavior 161

The Power of Physical Attractiveness: Some Important Qualifications 162

The Effects of Interaction 162

The Effects of Context 163

Stereotypes Are Not Always Valid 164

Attractiveness over Time 164

Our Body: Its Specific Features 165

Attractiveness and the Face 165

Judgments of the Face 167

Body Shape 169

Height 174

Body Image 177

Body Color 178

Body Smell 179

Body Hair 182

Our Body: Clothes and Other Artifacts 186

Functions of Clothing 188

Clothing as Information About the Person 190

Effects of Clothing on the Wearer 190

Clothing and Personality 191

Artifacts and Body Decorations 192

Summary 194

PART IV THE COMMUNICATORS’BEHAVIOR 197

CHAPTER 7The Effects of Gesture and Posture on Human Communication 199

Speech-Independent Gestures 201

Speech-Related Gestures 211

Referent-Related Gestures 212

Gestures Indicating a Speaker’s Relationship to the Referent 212

xCONTENTS

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Punctuation Gestures 214

Interactive Gestures 214

Gesture Frequency 216

The Coordination of Gesture, Posture, and Speech 219

Self-Synchrony 219

Interaction Synchrony 222

Summary 229

CHAPTER 8The Effects of Touch on Human Communication 231

Touching and Human Development 232

Who Touches Whom, Where, When, and How Much? 234

Different Types of Touching Behavior 237

The Meanings and Impact of Interpersonal Touch 241

Touch as Positive Affect 241

Touch as Negative Affect 241

Touch and Discrete Emotions 242

Touch as Play 242

Touch as Influence 243

Touch as Interaction Management 244

Touch as Physiological Stimulus 244

Touch as Interpersonal Responsiveness 244

Touch as Task Related 245

Touch as Healing 245

Touch as Symbolism 247

Contextual Factors in the Meaning of Interpersonal Touch 249

Touch Can Be a Powerful Nonconscious Force in Interaction 250

Self-Touching 253

Summary 256

CHAPTER 9The Effects of the Face on Human Communication 258

The Face and Personality Judgments 258

The Face and Interaction Management 259

Channel Control 260

Complementing or Qualifying Other Behavior 260

Replacing Spoken Messages 260

The Face and Expressions of Emotion 261

Display Rules and Facial Emotion Expression 262

The Facial Emotion Controversy 266

Measuring the Face 268

CONTENTS xi

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Measuring Emotion Recognition 274

Emotions Inferred from the Face 278

Physiology and the Face 285

Internalizers and Externalizers 285

Facial Expression and Health 285

Facial Feedback 286

The Social Impact of Facial Expressions 289

Summary 293

CHAPTER 10 The Effects of Eye Behavior on Human Communication 295

Gaze and Mutual Gaze 296

Functions of Gazing 297

Regulating the Flow of Communication 298

Monitoring Feedback 300

Reflecting Cognitive Activity 301

Expressing Emotions 301

Communicating the Nature of the Interpersonal Relationship 306

Conditions Influencing Gazing Patterns 309

Distance 309

Physical Characteristics 310

Personal Characteristics and Personality 310

Psychopathology 313

Topics and Tasks 314

Cultural and Racial Background and Racial Attitudes 317

Pupil Dilation and Constriction 318

Summary 321

CHAPTER 11 The Effects of Vocal Cues That Accompany Spoken Words 323

The Relative Importance of Channels 324

The Ingredients and Methods of Studying Paralanguage 326

Vocal Cues and Speaker Recognition 330

Vocal Cues and Personality 333

Vocal Cues and Group Perceptions 336

Vocal Cues and Judgments of Sociodemographic Characteristics 337

Sex 337

Age 339

Social Class or Status 339

Characteristics of Recipients 339

xii CONTENTS

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Vocal Cues and Emotion 341

Vocal Cues, Comprehension, and Persuasion 346

Vocal Cues, Comprehension, and Retention 347

Vocal Cues and Persuasion 348

Vocal Cues and Turn Taking in Conversations 349

Turn Yielding 350

Turn Requesting 350

Turn Maintaining 351

Turn Denying 351

Hesitations, Pauses, Silence, and Speech 351

Location or Placement of Pauses 352

Types of Pauses 352

Reasons Why Pauses Occur 353

Influence and Coordination within the Dyad 354

Silence 354

Summary 355

PART VCOMMUNICATING IMPORTANT MESSAGES 357

CHAPTER 12 Using Nonverbal Behavior in Daily Interaction 359

Communicating Intimacy 360

Courtship Behavior 360

Quasi-Courtship Behavior 363

Liking Behavior or Immediacy 364

Being Close in Close Relationships 364

Mutual Influence 367

Communicating Dominance and Status 369

Managing the Interaction 373

Greeting Behavior 373

Turn-Taking Behavior 375

Leave-Taking Behavior 378

Communicating Our Identity 379

Personal Identity 380

Social Identity 382

Deceiving Others 387

A Perspective for Communicators 392

Summary 393

CONTENTS xiii

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CHAPTER 13 Nonverbal Messages in Special Contexts 395

Advertising Messages 396

Political Messages 401

Teacher–Student Messages 405

Cultural Messages 408

High-Contact versus Low-Contact Cultures 408

Individualism versus Collectivism 409

High-Context versus Low-Context Cultures 410

Similarities across Cultures 410

Therapeutic Settings 411

Technology and Nonverbal Messages 414

Summary 419

REFERENCES 421

NAME INDEX 493

SUBJECT INDEX 508

xiv CONTENTS

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

PREFACE

Normally, the final thing authors do in a preface is to thank those who have been

instrumental in the development of their book. We’d like to depart from that

tradition by starting with our heartfelt thanks to the thousands of students and

instructors who have used this book and provided feedback to us during the past

40 years. More than anyone else, you are responsible for the longevity of this

book. With this in mind, we undertook this eighth edition by putting what we

believe to be instructor and student needs at the forefront of our writing. As with

previous editions, we encourage you to let us know whether we have succeeded.

The fact that this book is coauthored is worth noting. One of us represents

the field of communication and the other two social psychology. This collabo-

ration, which requires the blending of two distinct perspectives, is symbolic of

the nonverbal literature we report in this volume. The theory and research

addressing nonverbal phenomena comes from scholars with a wide variety of

academic backgrounds and perspectives—communication, counseling, psychology,

psychiatry, linguistics, sociology, management, speech, and others. Understanding

the nature of nonverbal communication is truly an interdisciplinary enterprise.

In revising this book, we retained the features that students and instructors

valued from the previous editions while adding and changing other things that we

believe will improve the book. One change that we hope students like is the inclu-

sion of text boxes in each chapter. These text boxes cover important, interesting,

or current topics relevant to the field of nonverbal communication. We recognize

how important photographs and drawings are in a book like this, so we have con-

tinued to use visual representations to aid comprehension of certain nonverbal

actions. Because an increasing amount of communication is mediated by some

form of technology, we have incorporated new research findings and topics in

that area that are relevant to the lives of students and teachers, such as Facebook,

online dating, and text messaging, to name a few.

In every new edition, we incorporate the most recent theory and research

while retaining definitive studies from the past. Readers will find that some areas

xv

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

of study have fewer recent references than others. This simply means that there

hasn’t been a lot of recent research in that area or that the recent work, in our

judgment, does not substantially change the conclusions from earlier studies. If

something we know about human behavior today was first revealed in a study

from 1958, we want readers to know that, and we will maintain the 1958 refer-

ence. Research on a particular topic often has an ebb and flow to it. During the

1960s and 1970s, the fear that a worldwide population boom would create terrible

problems spawned a lot of research on space, territory, and crowding. In recent

years, far less research has been done in this area. The study of gestures, on the

other hand, has gone from an area of relatively little research activity during the

1960s and 1970s to an area that is of primary interest to numerous scholars today.

Unlike past editions in which extensive bibliographies followed each chapter,

we have moved all the references to one bibliography in the back of the book.

Similar to previous editions, though, we have tried to retain a writing style that is

scientifically accurate as well as interesting to the reader. We are honored that our

book serves as both a textbook and a reference work. The Instructor’s Manual for

this book provides the information and imagination necessary for effective classroom

learning in nonverbal communication.

The book is divided into five parts. Part I introduces the reader to some funda-

mental ideas and addresses the following questions: What is nonverbal communi-

cation? How do verbal and nonverbal communication interrelate? What difference

does a knowledge of nonverbal communication make to your everyday life? Are

some people more skilled than others at communicating nonverbally? How did

they get that way? With this general perspective in mind, Parts II, III, and IV take

the reader through the nonverbal elements involved in any interaction: the environ-

ment within which the interaction occurs, the physical features of the interactants

themselves, and their behavior—gestures, touching, facial expressions, eye gazing,

and vocal sounds. Part V begins with a chapter focused on how all the separate

parts of an interaction combine as we seek to accomplish very common goals in

daily life—for example, communicating who we are, communicating closeness and

distance, communicating varying degrees of status and power, deceiving others,

and effectively managing the back-and-forth flow of conversation. Chapter 13

examines nonverbal communication in the context of advertising, therapy, the

classroom, politics, culture, and technology. Throughout the book we repeatedly

point out how all interactants involved are likely to play a role in whatever behavior

is displayed by a single individual—even though this perspective is not always

adequately developed in the research we review.

Several helpful online tools are available for use with this text. The online

Instructor’s Resource Manual includes a sample schedule, chapter objectives,

discussion questions, test items, audiovisual resources, exercises, and out-of-class

assignments. The companion Web site features student self-quizzes. In addition,

you can choose to purchase this text with 4 months of free access to InfoTrac

®

College Edition, a world-class, online university library that offers the full text of

articles from almost 5,000 scholarly journals and popular publications updated

daily, going back more than 20 years. Students can also gain instant access to

critical-thinking and paper-writing tools through InfoWrite. Your subscription

now includes InfoMarks

®

—instant access to virtual readers drawing from the vast

xvi PREFACE

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

InfoTrac College Edition library and hand selected to work with your books. You

can access your online resources at www.cengagebrain.com/. For more information

about these online resources, contact your local Cengage Learning representative.

All of us would like to thank Susanna Tippett for the time, energy, and

accuracy she contributed in preparing the bibliography as well as those (Melissa

Grey and Tom Voss) who reviewed a couple of our text boxes. Mark and Judy are

especially thankful for the high-quality and tireless work that Terry Horgan invested

in this edition. He brought a needed fresh perspective, a dynamic writing style,

and a high level of professionalism to this volume. We are honored that such a

fine scholar agreed to share authorship on this textbook.

Each of us would also like to thank following reviewers for their input

during the development of this edition:

Erika Engstrom, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Peggy Hutcheson, Kennesaw State University

Kevin Hutchinson, St. Norbert College

Rebecca Litke, California State University, Northridge

Christine Moore, Boise State University

Teri Varner, St. Edward’s University

Dennis Wignall, Dixie State College

We would also like to acknowledge the skills exhibited by the publishing staff

who helped us develop this edition including Monica Eckman, publisher, and

Colin Solan, editorial assistant. And a special thanks to Daisuke Yasutake

and Pooja Khurana for great patience and timeliness in all our communications

regarding the revision.

PREFACE xvii

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

AN INTRODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF

NONVERBAL

COMMUNICATION

[PART I]

What is nonverbal communication? How does nonverbal behavior function in rela-

tion to verbal behavior? How does nonverbal communication affect our everyday

lives? Do we learn how to perform body language, or is it instinctive? Are some

people more skilled at communicating with these face, voice, and body signals?

The answers to these fundamental questions are the focus of Part I of this book.

1

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:

BASIC PERSPECTIVES

[CHAPTER1]

It may come as no surprise to you that, in everyday life, you are an expert in non-

verbal communication even though you have yet to read a page of this book. Con-

sider the following questions:

•Have you ever looked at another person in such a way as to communicate

your sexual interest in him or her?

•When you enter an elevator full of strangers, do you take a sudden interest in

how those buttons light up as the cage moves from floor to floor?

•Do you know when a baby is hungry as opposed to tired, just from hearing

how it cries?

•If you cut someone off in traffic, would you have a problem understanding the

other driver’s reaction if he or she showed you only an upright middle finger?

•How would you use your right hand when you are introduced to a potential

boss during an interview?

•Can you tell when a loved one might be mad, sad, or happy by looking at his

or her face?

•Imagine entering a dorm room and seeing two men. One is wearing athletic

shorts and a tank top over a heavily muscled body, and he has posters of

football stars on the wall near his bed and his clothes litter his side of the

room. The other man—thin and bespectacled—appears to be neat as a pin,

with stacks of math and engineering books around his desk. Would you

suspect potential conflict between these two?

Those of us who keep our eyes open can read volumes into what we see going on

around us.

—E. T. Hall

3

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Chances are you had no problem answering these questions. That is because

everyone possesses a wealth of knowledge, beliefs, and experience regarding non-

verbal communication. These questions bring to mind three aspects of nonverbal

communication that you make use of during your day-to-day interactions with

others. One concerns the sending of nonverbal messages; the second, receiving

them; and the last, the complex interplay between the first two. First, you send (or

encode) nonverbal messages to others—sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. In

the case of the former, your goal is for the other person to understand a particular

message that you have sent to him or her along one or more nonverbal cue chan-

nels, such as your tone of voice, posture, and facial expression (“She could tell

I was mad at her”). Sometimes you succeed. If you do not, it could be because

your message was unclear, contradictory, or ambiguous or because the other

person missed, ignored, or misread your nonverbal message. You also may send

nonverbal messages to others that are not deliberate or even intended by you. For

example, you naturally communicate your biological sex to others via a series of

static nonverbal cues that include your body shape and facial features, and you

can burst into tears when sad. You have sent a powerful nonverbal message to

others in each case, even though your goal was not necessarily to do so. There are

times in which important information about your emotional state, attitudes, and

intentions leaks out of you nonverbally. Your bitterness toward a rival’s remarks

might be revealed in a flash of anger across your face despite your best efforts to

conceal it. Such facial cues are dynamic in nature because they change during an

interaction.

As you might have guessed already, you live in a sea of static and dynamic

nonverbal messages. These messages come to you when you are interacting with

others and even when you are all alone (“I start to shake when I think about my

date tonight”). They come to you from other people, such as strangers, acquain-

tances, neighbors, coworkers, friends, and loved ones. They even come to you

from animals that are part of your world, such as the neighbor’s dog that wags its

tail every time it sees you. They also come to you from the physical structure of,

and objects contained within, the environments that you move in and out of during

your day. These environments are real in a physical sense because you can make

physical contact with them. However, one such environment is not physical in this

sense: cyberspace. While in cyberspace, you can only hear and see nonverbal mes-

sages, such as those delivered by others’profile “pics”and emoticons. These

computer-generated nonverbal messages are probably becoming increasingly

important to you in a world where online interactions are taking the place of some

face-to-face interactions. Indeed, some of you might be taking this class—of all

things, a class in nonverbal communication—online.

Verbal messages are meaningless unless someone is there to interpret them.

Nonverbal communication is no different. The process of receiving nonverbal mes-

sages, including our own (“Why is my fist clenched when he’s around?”), includes

giving meaning to or interpreting those messages. (This process will be defined later

as decoding a nonverbal message.) As a receiver of nonverbal messages, you may

focus on one particular nonverbal cue or several in an attempt to understand the

message that another person has sent to you. For example, in an effort to under-

stand the emotional state of your friend James, you might focus on his facial

4PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

expression or his posture, facial expression, and tone of voice. Whether you are

successful at interpreting that emotional message is another matter altogether. If

you succeed, what you think he feels and how he actually feels will be the same.

However, as mentioned earlier, you might have missed or ignored that nonverbal

message. Or, depending on your skill level at reading others’emotion states, you

might have misinterpreted his nonverbal message. Finally, you might have correctly

interpreted his message but still do not understand how he truly feels because he

used nonverbal behavior to feign a feeling or conceal a particular emotion state

from you.

It is obvious that words can be combined in an infinite number of ways, and

that the meaning of a sentence may depend upon contextual information, word

choice, and the arrangement of the selected words. For example, take the following

sentence fragment: “Mia learned about …She drove to …Charity …with a …in

her hand.”It is unclear what is going on in this situation. Let us see what happens

when we add different contextual information and words to these sentences.

(1) Mia learned about the plight of the children. She drove to the Charity with a

checkbook in her hand. (2) Mia learned about her husband’s infidelity. She drove

to the house where Charity lives with a gun in her hand. In a similar fashion, the

meaning of nonverbal communication is not as simple as knowing what specific

nonverbal behavior, say touching, is seen by you. It depends upon contextual infor-

mation, the sender (encoder) of the nonverbal behavior, the receiver (decoder) of

that behavior, the relationship between the sender and receiver, the arrangement

of other nonverbal cues, as well as any words being exchanged by the two.

Let us consider an example to illustrate the complexity of nonverbal communi-

cation. You see two people hug. What does that hug mean? Now what comes to

your mind when additional information is added?

•There are other people around dressed in black standing near an open casket

at a funeral, or the two people are at a high school reunion.

•What if the setting is a nightclub and the two people are a man and woman in

the early stages of a romantic relationship as opposed to two men who are

there to celebrate their baseball team’s victory earlier that evening?

•Would your perception of the hug change if you learned that the setting was a

work party and the person initiating the hugging was known to be very warm

and outgoing versus of high status and a domineering disposition?

•How might the inclusion and placement of other nonverbal cues, such as pos-

ture, affect your perception of the hug? What if the two people are leaning

toward each other from a distance, touching shoulders only briefly as opposed

to pressing their bodies together and resting their heads on each other’s

shoulders? Would it matter to you if the person being hugged stiffened his or her

body before receiving the hug? Historical and cultural factors are likely to play a

role in your perception of that simple hug as well. If you had lived around the

turn of the 20th century, you would have looked askance at the two people if

you knew that they had just ended their first date, whereas nowadays such

behavior would not even raise one of your eyebrows. If the two were Eastern

European men, you might not be surprised if they began cheek kissing as well,

whereas you would be surprised if they were from the United States.

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 5

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

•Lastly, consideration would be given to any words exchanged between the two

people, as this could significantly alter the meaning of their hug. For instance,

in the funeral setting mentioned earlier, it would matter if, during the hug, one

person said to the other, “Sorry for your loss,”as opposed to “We can now

finally get our hands on our inheritance money!”

Being an expert in using and understanding nonverbal cues, you probably had

no problem understanding how the meaning of that hug changed in these scenar-

ios. On the basis of the hugging scenarios (see Figure 1-1), it might be clear to you

that a particular nonverbal cue has multiple meanings (or maybe even no apparent

meaning at all) and that the particular meaning you settle on depends on a host of

other factors, including the presence and absence of other nonverbal cues. Thus, as

a sender and receiver of nonverbal cues, you have to make some decisions about

CAN PEOPLE READ OTHERS LIKE A BOOK?

It depends on your definition of like a book. There are book

titles that tell us a lot about what is inside (e.g., How to

Taste: A Guide to Enjoying Wine). Similarly, there are

nonverbal displays that can tell us a lot about what a

person is feeling inside (e.g., red face, eyebrows lowered

and drawn together, shaking fists). Book covers and titles

also allow us to categorize stories (e.g., nonfiction, history,

civil war battles). Likewise, we can categorize people—their

age, gender, and personality traits—by looking at their

head and facial characteristics (see Chapter 6).

However, understanding books and people is generally a far more complicated matter. If you read

Stephenie Meyer’sTwilight series, you had to learn about the characters, the events, the setting, and the

plot to grasp her story. Understanding people is no different. If you were observing another person, you

would want to take into consideration his or her characteristics (physical, social, psychological), his or her

nonverbal and verbal behavior, the setting he or she is in, whom he or she is interacting with and why,

and so on. Importantly, people’s nonverbal cues are only one clue—the meaning of which is dependent

upon a host of other factors—to understanding who they are.

androfroll/Shutterstock.com

beboy/Shutterstock.com

6PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the cues you transmit to and pick up from others, which suggests that there must

be some rules that you follow. Some of these rules may be very clear to you, such

as knowing that you should not sniff a member of the other sex when you first

meet him or her. Other rules that you follow are completely unknown to you,

operating outside your conscious awareness. Do you know the array of cues that

you send and receive that allow you and a friend to smoothly and effortlessly take

turns while talking to each other? Finally, other rules occupy the middle ground

between the two; they can be brought to your conscious awareness at times, if

only partially. One such rule concerns not standing too close to others when talk-

ing with them. Although you are aware of this rule, you probably do not think

about it much during your day-to-day interactions. However, although the exact

distance of your personal comfort zone may be unknown to you, you certainly

know when it has been violated by someone standing too close. Because these

rules run the gamut from being explicit to completely outside of your conscious

awareness, the decisions you make regarding your use and interpretation of non-

verbal cues must as well.

Despite being an expert in the everyday use of nonverbal cues, you are new to

the scientific study of nonverbal communication. The need to formally investigate

what people do in everyday life becomes quickly apparent when you think about

the specifics of nonverbal behavior. For example, how do people’s personal com-

fort zones vary from culture to culture, and how do people manage to take turns

smoothly in conversation? The purpose of this book is to introduce you to the

scientific study of nonverbal communication, which includes an examination of

how nonverbal cues are used—whether intentionally or spontaneously, consciously

FIGURE 1-1

What will this hug mean?

Anton Gvozdikov/Shutterstock.com

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 7

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

or not—in human interaction. Of importance, our understanding of nonverbal

communication comes from many different disciplines, including anthropology,

biology, communication, gender studies, psychology, and sociology, which will

become apparent in the chapters to follow.

However, before we get to that, there is a need to discuss five basic perspec-

tives through which we can view these chapters:

1. As with other scientific disciplines, there is a need for a common language for

discussing the topic at hand. Thus, nonverbal communication will be defined.

2. Nonverbal behavior also will be classified (e.g., territoriality, gestures, touch-

ing, eye behavior). By classifying nonverbal behaviors, we will be able to

review the relevant research in each area in an organized fashion.

3. Nonverbal behavior that has been defined and classified (e.g., touching behav-

ior) should not be thought of as occurring in isolation from nonverbal behav-

ior that is part of another category (e.g., eye behavior) or, for that matter,

from verbal behavior. Indeed, consideration of the interplay between nonver-

bal cues and verbal cues is a vital part of understanding the total communica-

tion process that occurs between people in daily life and even on social

networking sites.

4. The scientific roots and historical trends in nonverbal communication research

will be reviewed, as they provide the foundation and framework, respectively,

for exploring the current research in this domain.

5. The potential relevance of this scientific endeavor to our everyday lives will be

discussed, as many of its findings have implications for our personal lives and

can be applied to the various settings in which we work.

Each of these basic perspectives will be covered in greater detail in the remain-

der of this chapter.

PERSPECTIVE 1: DEFINING NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

To most people, the phrase nonverbal communication refers to communication

effected by means other than words, assuming words are the verbal element. Like

most definitions, this one is generally useful, but it does not account for the com-

plexity of this phenomenon adequately. This broad definition should serve us well,

though, as long as we understand and appreciate the following points.

First, we need to understand that separating verbal and nonverbal behavior

into two separate and distinct categories is virtually impossible. Consider, for

example, the hand movements that make up American Sign Language, a language

of the deaf. These gesticulations are mostly linguistic (verbal), yet hand gestures

are often considered behavior that is “other than words.”And for those who can

hear, their own hand gestures may be used to retrieve the words they wish to

speak to others from their mental lexicon (Hadar, Wenkert-Olenik, Krauss, &

Soroker, 1998). McNeill (1992) demonstrated the linguistic qualities of some

gestures by noting that different kinds of gestures disappear with different kinds of

aphasia—the impairment of the ability to use or comprehend words—namely,

those gestures with linguistic functions similar to the specific verbal loss. Conversely,

not all spoken words are clearly or singularly verbal: for example, onomatopoeic

8PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

words, such as buzz or murmur, and nonpropositional speech used by auctioneers

and some people with aphasia.

Second, we need to understand that our definition does not indicate whether

the phrase “by means other than words”refers to the type of signal produced—

that is, its encoding—or to the perceiver’s code for interpreting the symbol—its

decoding. Generally, when people refer to nonverbal behavior, they are talking

about the signals produced, or encoded, to which meaning will be attributed, not

the process of attributing meaning. A first step toward understanding the process

of attributing meaning to nonverbal behavior is to understand how the brain pro-

cesses nonverbal stimuli.

PROCESSING NONVERBAL INFORMATION

Currently, many brain researchers believe that the two hemispheres of the brain

process different types of information, but each hemisphere does not process each

type exclusively. Nonverbal messages may be processed by either hemisphere, even

though the bulk of the work is probably done by the right side. The left hemisphere

processes mainly sequentially ordered, digital, verbal, and linguistic information.

Nonverbal messages processed by the left hemisphere may involve symbolic gestures

and facial expressions that have a closely linked verbal translation: for example,

speech-independent gestures that have a direct verbal translation, such as thumbs-

up (see Chapter 7). The right hemisphere of the brain is normally credited with pro-

cessing visual/spatial relationships and analogic, or Gestalt, information. And it

seems to be the main processing area for some types of gestures as well as spontane-

ous, expressive displays of emotion in the face and voice (Buck & VanLear, 2002;

Kelly & Goldsmith, 2004). It is important to note, however, that few scientists cur-

rently believe that either side of the brain deals exclusively with a particular kind of

information. In fact, the following case illustrates how adaptable the brain can be.

Bruce Lipstadt had the left hemisphere of his brain removed when he was

5 years old (Koutlak, 1976). Few doctors had hope for the development of his

verbal ability, and most thought the operation would paralyze part of his body.

Twenty-six years later, Bruce had an IQ of 126—better than 9 out of 10 people.

He swam, rode his bike, and got an A in a statistics course. Because his speech

was normal, the right hemisphere must have taken over many of the functions

formerly conducted mainly by the left hemisphere. Obviously, this does not always

happen as a result of operations of this type, especially after puberty. But it does sug-

gest that, although the right and left hemispheres seem to specialize in processing

certain types of information, they are by no means limited to processing only one.

Even when information is being processed primarily by one hemisphere, it

is unlikely that the other hemisphere is totally inactive. While someone is reading

a story, the right hemisphere may be playing a specialized role in understanding

a metaphor or appreciating emotional content, whereas the left hemisphere is

simultaneously trying to derive meaning from the complex relations among

word concepts and syntax. Interestingly, the different functions of the two brain

hemispheres do not seem as clearly differentiated in women as in men, and some

left-handed people are known to have hemispheric functions the opposite of those

just described (Andersen, Garrison, & Andersen, 1979; Iaccino, 1993).

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 9

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Despite the apparent complexity and adaptability of the brain, much of what is

processed by the right hemisphere seems to be what we call nonverbal phenomena,

whereas much of what is processed by the left hemisphere is what we categorize as

verbal phenomena. However, because some nonverbal behavior is more closely

aligned with verbal behavior than others (e.g., speech-independent gestures), we

might expect to see more left-hemispheric activity in such cases.

AWARENESS AND CONTROL

Thus far, our definition has not addressed the issue of whether the nonverbal beha-

viors we enact are done with a great deal of awareness or not. Nonverbal behavior,

like verbal behavior, is encoded with varying degrees of control and awareness

(Lakin, 2006). Sometimes human beings have time to plan their responses. Some-

times it is extremely important for them to respond rapidly when a great deal of

information is impinging on their senses. When this occurs, people are unaware,

or only dimly aware, of why they responded as they did. These responses are

linked to a cognitive program that takes place immediately and automatically fol-

lowing the perception of a particular stimulus (Choi, Gray, & Ambady, 2005).

When we use speech-independent gestures, pose for photographs, or select our

attire, a high level of awareness and control is usually present. We know what we

are doing, we take time to respond, and we enact our behavior according to a con-

scious plan. Nervous mannerisms, pupil dilation, and mimicking the behavior of an

interaction partner are examples of behavior that are often enacted outside of our

awareness and control (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). We may even have an

entire array of default verbal and nonverbal behaviors that kick in automatically

when, for example, we are introduced to a stranger. We may enact a given behav-

ior without much awareness on some occasions but may do so with a great deal of

awareness at other times. For example, we may not realize our tone of voice is sig-

naling our dislike for a person we are talking to, but we are very much aware of

using our voice to communicate a sarcastic message.

Decoding nonverbal behavior also may be performed with varying degrees

of awareness. Sometimes we perceive a stimulus, such as a man who looks elderly,

and this automatically triggers the perception that the man is also walking slowly—

whether he is or not. When people say they think a person is lying but cannot

explain what behaviors led them to believe that, it may mean there is an out-

of-awareness program in their brain that is associated with the deception and

triggered by the perception of certain behaviors.

But responses that are out of our awareness and control need not always be

that way. Feedback on the accuracy or utility of an automatic process may lead to

changing the program or eliminating it. Reading this book may also make you

more aware of certain behaviors you have been encoding and decoding.

PERSPECTIVE 2: CLASSIFYING NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

Another way of defining nonverbal communication is to look at the things people

study. The theory and research associated with nonverbal communication focus on

three primary units: the environmental structures and conditions within which

10 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

communication takes place, the physical characteristics of the communicators

themselves, and the various behaviors manifested by the communicators. A detailed

breakdown of these three features follows.

THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Although most of the emphasis in nonverbal research is on

the appearance and behavior of the people communicating, increasing attention is

being given to the influence of nonhuman factors on human transactions. People

change environments to help them accomplish their communicative goals; con-

versely, environments can affect our moods, choices of words, and actions. Thus,

this category concerns those elements that impinge on the human relationship but

are not directly a part of it. Environmental factors include the furniture, architec-

tural style, interior decorating, lighting conditions, colors, temperature, additional

noises or music, and so on amid which the interaction occurs. Variations in

arrangements, materials, shapes, or surfaces of objects in the interacting environ-

ment can be extremely influential on the outcome of an interpersonal relationship.

This category also includes what might be called traces of action. For instance, as

you observe cigarette butts, orange peels, and wastepaper left by the person you

will soon interact with, you form an impression that will eventually influence

your meeting with him or her. Perceptions of time and timing make up another

important part of the communicative environment. When something occurs, how

frequently it occurs, and the tempos or rhythms of actions are clearly a part of

the communicative world even though they are not a part of the physical environ-

ment per se.

SPATIAL ENVIRONMENT Proxemics is the study of the use and perception of social and

personal space. Under this heading is a body of work called small group ecology,

which concerns itself with how people use and respond to spatial relationships in

formal and informal group settings. Such studies deal with seating and spatial

arrangements as related to leadership, communication flow, and the task at hand.

On an even broader level, some attention has been given to spatial relationships

in crowds and densely populated situations. Personal space orientation is some-

times studied in the context of conversation distance and how it varies according

to sex, status, roles, cultural orientation, and so forth. The term territoriality is

also used frequently in the study of proxemics to denote the human tendency to

stake out personal territory, or “untouchable space,”much as wild animals and

birds do.

THE COMMUNICATORS’PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

This category covers things that remain relatively unchanged during the period of

interaction. These static nonverbal cues include a person’s physique or body

shape, general attractiveness, height, weight, hair, overall skin color or tone, and

so forth. Body or breath odors associated with the person are normally considered

part of his or her physical appearance. Further, objects associated with interactants

also may affect physical appearance. These are called artifacts and include things

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 11

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

such as clothes, eyeglasses, hairpieces, false eyelashes, jewelry, and accessories

(e.g., an attaché case). Physical appearance also includes the various ways people

choose to decorate their skin: for example, with tattoos, cosmetics, scars, piercings,

and paint.

BODY MOVEMENT AND POSITION

Dynamic body movement and positioning typically include the following: gestures;

movements of the limbs, hands, head, feet, and legs; facial expressions, such as

smiles; eye behavior, including blinking, direction and length of gaze, and pupil

dilation; and posture. The furrow of the brow, the slump of a shoulder, and the

tilt of a head are all considered body movements and positions. Specifically, the

major areas are gestures, posture, touching behavior, facial expressions, eye behav-

ior, and vocal behavior.

GESTURES There are many different types of gestures, and many variations of these

types, but the most frequently studied are the following:

1. Speech independent. When viewed independently of speech, these gestures

have a well-known verbal translation in their usage community, usually con-

sisting of a word or two or a phrase. The gestures used to represent “okay”or

“peace”(also the “V-for-victory”sign) are examples of speech-independent

gestures for large segments of U.S. culture.

2. Speech related. These gestures are directly tied to, or accompany, speech

and often serve to illustrate what is being said verbally. These movements

may accent or emphasize a word or phrase, sketch a path of thought,

point to present objects, depict a spatial relationship, depict the rhythm or

pacing of an event, draw a picture of a referent, depict a bodily action,

or serve as commentary on the regulation and organization of the

interactive process.

POSTURE Posture is normally studied in conjunction with other nonverbal signals

to determine the degree of attention or involvement, the degree of status relative

to the other interactive partner, or the degree of liking for the other interactant.

A forward-leaning posture, for example, has been associated with higher involve-

ment, more liking, and lower status in studies where interactants did not know

each other very well. Posture is also a key indicator of the intensity of some emo-

tional states: for example, the drooping posture associated with sadness or the

rigid, tense posture associated with anger. The extent to which the communicators

mirror each other’s posture may indicate conversational involvement, which some-

times results in greater rapport between interactants.

TOUCHING BEHAVIOR Touching may be self-focused or other-focused. Self-focused

manipulations, not usually made for purposes of communicating, may reflect a

person’s particular state or habit. Many are commonly called nervous mannerisms.

Some of these actions are relics from an earlier time in our life, when we

first learned how to manage emotions, develop social contacts, or perform some

12 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

instructional task. Sometimes we perform these manipulations as we adapt to such

learning experiences, and they stay with us when we face similar situations later

in life, often as only part of the original movement. Some refer to these types of

self-focused manipulation as adaptors. These adaptors may involve various manip-

ulations of one’s own body, such as licking, picking, holding, pinching, and

scratching. Object adaptors are manipulations practiced in conjunction with an

object, as when a reformed cigarette smoker reaches toward his breast pocket for

the nonexistent package of cigarettes. Of course, not all behaviors that reflect

habitual actions or an anxious disposition can be traced to earlier adaptations,

but they do represent a part of the overall pattern of bodily action.

One of the most potent forms of nonverbal communication occurs when two

people touch. Touch can be virtually electric, but it also can hurt or comfort. As

you will see later, touch is a highly ambiguous form of behavior whose meaning

often depends more on the context, the nature of the relationship, and the manner

of execution than on the configuration of the touch per se. Some researchers are

concerned with touching behavior as an important factor in a child’s early develop-

ment, and others are concerned with adult touching behavior.

FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Most studies of the face are concerned with the configurations

that display various emotional states. The six primary affects that receive the most

study are anger, sadness, surprise, happiness, fear, and disgust. Facial expressions

also can function as regulatory gestures, providing feedback and managing the

flow of interaction. In fact, some researchers believe the primary function of

the face is to communicate, not to express emotions.

EYE BEHAVIOR Where we look, when we look, and how long we look during an

interaction are the primary foci for studies of gazing. Gaze refers to the eye move-

ment we make in the general direction of another’s face. Mutual gaze occurs when

interactants look into each other’s eye area. The dilation and constriction of the

pupils is of particular interest to those who study nonverbal communication because

it is sometimes an indicator of interest, attention/involvement, or deception.

VOCAL BEHAVIOR Vocal behavior deals with how something is said, not what is

said. It deals with the range of nonverbal vocal cues surrounding common speech

behavior. Generally, a distinction is made between two types of sounds:

1. The sound variations made with the vocal cords during speech that are a

function of changes in pitch, duration, and loudness.

2. Sounds that result primarily from physiological mechanisms other than the

vocal cords: for example, the pharyngeal, oral, or nasal cavities.

Most of the research on vocal behavior and its effects on human interaction has

focused on pitch level and variability; the duration of sounds, whether they are clipped

or drawn out; pauses within the speech stream and the latency of response when

switching speaking turns; loudness level and variability; resonance; precise or slurred

articulation; rate; rhythm; and intruding sounds during speech, such as “uh”or

“um.”The study of vocal signals encompasses a broad range of interests, from ques-

tions focusing on stereotypes associated with certain voices to questions about the

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 13

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

effects of vocal behavior on comprehension and persuasion. Thus, even specialized

sounds such as laughing, belching, yawning, swallowing, and moaning may be of

interest to the extent that they might affect the outcome of an interaction.

PERSPECTIVE 3: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

IN THE TOTAL COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Even though this book emphasizes nonverbal communication, it is important not to

forget the inseparable nature of verbal and nonverbal signals. Ray Birdwhistell, a

pioneer in nonverbal research, reportedly said that studying only nonverbal com-

munication is like studying noncardiac physiology. His point is well taken. It is

not easy to dissect human interaction and make one diagnosis that concerns only

verbal behavior and another that concerns only nonverbal behavior. The verbal

dimension is so intimately woven and subtly represented in so much of what has

been previously labeled nonverbal that the term does not always adequately describe

the behavior under study. Some of the most noteworthy scholars associated with

nonverbal study refuse to segregate words from gestures; these scholars work under

the broader terms of communication or face-to-face interaction (Bavelas & Chovil,

2006). Kendon puts it this way:

It is a common observation that, when a person speaks, muscular systems besides those

of the lips, tongue, and jaws often become active.…Gesticulation is organized as part of

the same overall unit of action by which speech is also organized.…Gesture and speech

are available as two separate modes of representation and are coordinated because both

are being guided by the same overall aim. That aim is to produce a pattern of action that

will accomplish the representation of a meaning. (1983, pp. 17, 20)

Because verbal and nonverbal systems operate together as part of the larger com-

munication process, efforts to distinguish clearly between the two have not been

very successful. One common misconception, for example, assumes that nonverbal

behavior is used solely to communicate emotional messages, whereas verbal behav-

ior is for conveying ideas. Words transmit emotional information—we can talk

explicitly about emotions, and we also communicate emotion between the lines in

verbal nuances. Conversely, nonverbal cues are often used for purposes other than

showing emotion; for example, people in conversation use eye movements to help

tell each other when it is time to switch speaking turns, and people commonly use

hand gestures while talking to help convey their ideas (McNeill, 2000).

We also need to recognize that the ways we attribute meaning to verbal and

nonverbal behavior are not all that different, either. Nonverbal actions, like verbal

ones, may communicate more than one message at a time. For example, the way

you nonverbally make it clear to another person that you want to keep talking

may simultaneously express your need for dominance over that person as well as

your current emotional state. When you grip a child’s shoulder during a repri-

mand, you may increase his or her comprehension and recall, but you may also

elicit such a negative reaction that he or she refuses to obey you. A smile can be

a part of an emotional expression, an attitudinal message, a self-presentation, or a

listener response to manage the interaction. And, like verbal behavior, the mean-

ings attributed to nonverbal behavior may be stereotyped, idiomatic, or ambiguous.

14 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Furthermore, the same nonverbal behavior performed in different contexts may,

like words, receive different attributions of meaning. For example, looking down

at the floor may reflect sadness in one situation and submissiveness or lack of

involvement in another. Finally, in an effort to identify the fundamental categories

of meaning associated with nonverbal behavior, Mehrabian (1970, 1981) identified

a threefold perspective resulting from his extensive testing:

1. Immediacy. Sometimes we react to things by evaluating them as positive or

negative, good or bad, and so on.

2. Status. Sometimes we enact or perceive behaviors that indicate various aspects

of status to us, such as strong or weak, superior or subordinate.

3. Responsiveness. This third category refers to our perceptions of activity as

being slow or fast, active or passive.

In various verbal and nonverbal studies over the past three decades, dimensions

similar to Mehrabian’s have been reported consistently by investigators from

diverse fields studying diverse phenomena. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore,

that these three dimensions are basic responses to our environment and are

reflected in the way we assign meaning to both verbal and nonverbal behavior.

Most of this work, however, depends on people translating their reactions to a

nonverbal act into verbal descriptors. This issue has already been addressed in

our discussion of the way the brain processes different pieces of information.

In general, then, like words, nonverbal signals can and do have multiple uses and

meanings; like words, nonverbal signals have denotative and connotative meanings;

and like words, nonverbal signals play an active role in communicating liking,

power, and responsiveness. With these in mind, we can now examine some of the

important ways verbal and nonverbal behaviors interrelate during human interac-

tion. Ekman (1965) identified the following: repeating, conflicting, complementing,

substituting, accenting/moderating, and regulating.

REPEATING

Nonverbal communication can simply repeat what was said verbally. For instance,

if you told a person he or she had to go north to find a parking place and then

pointed in the proper direction, this would be repetition.

CONFLICTING

Verbal and nonverbal signals can be at variance with one another in a variety of

ways. They may communicate two contradictory messages or two messages that

seem incongruous with each other (see Figure 1-2). In both instances, two messages

that do not appear to be consistent with each other are perceived. It is quite com-

mon, and probably functional, to have mixed feelings about some things. As a

result, incongruous verbal and nonverbal messages may be more common than we

realize. But it is the more dramatic contradictions that we are more likely to notice.

Perhaps it is the parent who yells to his or her child in an angry voice, “Of course

I love you!”Or the public speaker, who, with trembling hands and knees and

beads of perspiration on the brow, claims, “I’m not nervous.”

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 15

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Why do these conflicting messages occur? In some cases it is a natural response

to a situation in which communicators perceive themselves to be in a bind. They do

not want to tell the truth, and they do not want to lie. As a result, their ambiva-

lence and frustration produce a discrepant message (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, &

Mullett, 1990). In other situations, conflicting messages occur because people do

an imperfect job of lying. Suppose you have just given a terrible presentation, and

you ask me how you did. I may say you did fine, but my voice, face, and body

may not support my words. On still other occasions, conflicting messages may be

the result of an attempt to communicate sarcasm or irony, saying one thing with

words and the opposite with vocal tone and/or facial expression. The term coy is

used to describe the display of coexisting signals that invite friendly contact with

those that signal rejection and withdrawal. We live in a complex world, which

makes feelings of ambivalence or mixed emotions a much more common experi-

ence than we sometimes acknowledge (Weigert, 1991).

Displays of incongruous or conflicting signals may occur in a variety of ways.

Sometimes two nonverbal signals may manifest the discord (e.g., vocal with visual),

but usually we are more aware of the contrasting verbal and nonverbal signals

(e.g., positive voice/negative words, negative voice/positive words, positive face/

negative words, or negative face/positive words).

How do we react when confronted with conflicting messages that matter to us?

Leathers (1979) has identified a common three-step process:

1. The first reaction is confusion and uncertainty.

2. Next, we search for additional information that will clarify the situation.

3. If clarification is not forthcoming, we will probably react with displeasure,

hostility, or even withdrawal.

It is not unusual for a person perceiving a conflicting message that is ambiguous

to respond with an ambiguous message of his or her own. Some believe that a

FIGURE 1-2

(a) Conflicting verbal/nonverbal signals. (b) Is this an aggressive or playful situation? What observations

influenced your decision?

b

a

16 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

constant barrage of conflicting and ambiguous messages can contribute to a

psychopathology in the receiver. This may be particularly true when the commu-

nicators have a close relationship and the target of the conflicting messages has

no one else he or she can turn to for discussion and possible clarification of

the confusing messages. Some research finds that parents of disturbed children

produce more messages with conflicting cues (Bugental, Love, Kaswan, & April,

1971). Other work suggests that the differences are not in conflicting cues but in

negative messages; that is, parents with disturbed children send more negative

messages (Beakel & Mehrabian, 1969). The combination of negativity, confusion,

and punishment can be very harmful if it is a common style of communication

directed toward children. Date rape is another situation in which testimony often

centers around the extent to which the signals of rejection were unequivocal or

ambiguous.

We do not wish to give the impression that all forms of discrepant messages are

harmful. Our daily conversations are probably peppered with instances in which

gestures and speech do not exactly match one another; for example, a speaker telling

a story about someone climbing up a pipe while simultaneously gesturing as though

he or she were climbing a ladder (McNeill, Cassell, & McCullough, 1994). Some-

times these discrepancies go unnoticed, and many are cognitively “resolved”without

overtly discussing the mismatch. Even contradictions with more important implica-

tions for conversants may not, in some situations, be considered harmful. Moreover,

as stated earlier, discrepancy is required for achieving certain effects. Sarcasm, for

example, occurs when the words are pleasant but the voice quality is unpleasant,

and when the words are unpleasant but the tone of voice is pleasant, we are likely

to communicate the message that we are only joking.

Finally, some discrepancies may be helpful in certain situations. In an experi-

ment, teachers used mixed messages while teaching a lesson to sixth-grade pupils.

When the teachers combined positive words with a negative nonverbal demeanor,

pupils learned more than with any other combination (Woolfolk, 1978). Similarly,

a study of doctors talking with patients found that the combination of positive

words said in a negative tone of voice was associated with the highest levels of

patient satisfaction with the visit (Hall, Roter, & Rand, 1981). Possibly the positive

verbal/negative nonverbal combination is perceived in classrooms and doctors’

offices as “serious and concerned,”and therefore, makes a better impression on

students and patients alike.

Some research has questioned whether we trust and believe nonverbal signals

more than verbal ones when we are confronted with conflicting messages (Bugental,

1974; Burgoon, 1980; Mehrabian, 1972a; Stiff, Hale, Garlick, & Rogan, 1990). It is

often assumed that nonverbal signals are more spontaneous, harder to fake, less

likely to be manipulated, and hence more believable. It is probably more accurate to

say, however, that some nonverbal behaviors are more spontaneous and harder to

fake than others and that some people are more proficient than others at nonverbal

deception. With two conflicting cues, both of which are nonverbal, we predictably

place our reliance on the cues we consider harder to fake. One research team found

that people tended to rely primarily on visual cues in visual/auditory discrepancies,

but when the discrepancy was great, people tended to rely on the audio signals

(DePaulo, Rosenthal, Eisenstat, Rogers, & Finkelstein, 1978).

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 17

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The credibility of information in messages made up of conflicting signals is also

an important factor in determining which cues to believe. If the information being

communicated in one channel lacks credibility, we are likely to discount it and look

to other channels for the “real”message (Bugental, 1974). Sometimes we are faced

with the dilemma of perceiving the meaning communicated by hard-to-fake cues

that do not seem credible. If a person says, “This is really great,”with a sad tone of

voice upon receiving a birthday gift you know was long desired, you are likely to

search for other explanations (e.g., he or she is bothered about getting older).

Interestingly, young children seem to give less credence to certain nonverbal

cues than adults do when confronted with conflicting verbal and nonverbal

messages (Bugental, Kaswan, Love, & Fox, 1970; Bugental, Love, & Gianetto,

1971; Volkmar & Siegel, 1982). Conflicting messages in which the speaker smiled

while making a critical statement were interpreted more negatively by children than

adults, particularly when the speaker was a woman.

Other work casts an even deeper shadow on the theory that we always rely on

nonverbal cues in conflicting-message situations. Shapiro (1968) found that student

judges differed as to whether they relied on verbal or facial cues when asked to select

the affect being communicated by sketched faces with expressions that were incon-

gruent with the written messages associated with them. Vande Creek and Watkins

(1972) extended Shapiro’s work by using real voices and moving pictures. The

people in the stimulus examples portrayed inconsistencies in the degree of stress in

verbal and nonverbal channels. Again, they found that some respondents tended to

rely primarily on verbal cues, some tended to rely on nonverbal cues, and some

responded to the degree of stress in general regardless of the channels manifesting it.

The cross-cultural research of Solomon and Ali (1975) suggests that familiarity with

the verbal language may affect our reliance on verbal or nonverbal cues. They found,

for instance, that people who were less familiar with the language used to construct

the contradictory message relied on the content for judgments of affective meaning.

Those who knew the language well were more apt to rely on the vocal intonation

for the affective meaning. So it appears that some people will rely more heavily on

the verbal message when verbal and nonverbal cues offer conflicting information.

We do not know all the conditions that affect which signals people look to for

valid information. As a general rule, people tend to rely on those signals they

perceive harder to fake, but this will most likely vary with the situation; so the ulti-

mate impact of verbal, visual, and vocal signals is best determined by a close exam-

ination of the people involved in a specific communication context.

Finally, whether people rely more on what a person says or does nonverbally

may depend on what they are trying to figure out about that person. Hall and

Schmid Mast (2007) showed that people turn relatively more to nonverbal cues

when they want to know how a person is feeling and more to verbal cues when

they want to know what a person is thinking.

COMPLEMENTING

Nonverbal behavior can modify or elaborate on verbal messages. When the verbal

and nonverbal channels are complementary, rather than conflicting, our messages

are usually decoded more accurately. Some evidence suggests that complementary

18 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

nonverbal signals also may be helpful when attempting to recall the verbal

message. A student who reflects an attitude of embarrassment when talking to a

professor about a poor performance in class assignments is exhibiting nonverbal

behavior that complements the verbal. When clarity is of utmost importance, as in

a job interview or when making up with a loved one after a fight, we should be

especially concerned with making the meanings of verbal and nonverbal behavior

complement each other.

SUBSTITUTING

Nonverbal behavior can also substitute for verbal messages. It may indicate more

permanent characteristics (sex, age), moderately long-lasting features (personality,

attitudes, social group), and relatively short-term states of a person. In the latter

case, we may see a dejected and downtrodden executive walk into his or her

house after work with a facial expression that substitutes for the statement, “I’ve

had a rotten day.”With a little practice, people soon learn to identify a wide

range of these substitute nonverbal displays—all the way from “It’s been a fantastic

day!”to “Oh, God, am I miserable!”

Sometimes, when substitute nonverbal behavior does not get the desired

response, the communicator tries to verbally clarify the message. Consider the

woman who wants her date to stop trying to become physically intimate with her.

She may stiffen, stare straight ahead, or act unresponsive. If the suitor still does not

stop, she might say something like “Look, Larry, please don’t ruin a nice

friendship.”

ACCENTING/MODERATING

Nonverbal behavior may accent (amplify) or moderate (tone down) parts of the

verbal message. Accenting is much like underlining or italicizing written words to

emphasize them. Movements of the head and hands are frequently used to accent

the verbal message. When a father scolds his son for staying out too late, he may

accent a particular phrase with a firm grip on the son’s shoulder and an accompa-

nying frown. In some instances, one set of nonverbal cues can accent or moderate

other nonverbal cues. For example, by observing other parts of a person’s body

(e.g., a clenched fist), the full intensity of a facial expression of anger is revealed.

REGULATING

Nonverbal behavior is also used to regulate verbal behavior. We do this in two

ways:

1. By coordinating our own verbal and nonverbal behavior in the production of

our messages

2. By coordinating our verbal and nonverbal message behavior with those of our

interaction partners

We regulate the production of our own messages in a variety of ways. Some-

times we use nonverbal signs to segment units of interaction. Posture changes may

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 19

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

demarcate a topic change; a gesture may forecast the verbalization of a particular

idea; pauses may help organize spoken information into units. When we speak of

a series of things, we may communicate discreteness by linear, staccato movements

of the arm and hand; for example, “We must consider A, B, and C.”When we

insert a chopping gesture after each letter, it may suggest a separate consideration

of each letter; a single chop after C might indicate either a consideration of all

three as a group or C in particular.

We also regulate the flow of verbal and nonverbal behavior between ourselves

and an interactant. This may manifest itself in the dramatic (e.g., every time one

person gets mad and yells, the other behaves in a solicitous manner) or less obvious

(e.g., the signals of initiation, continuation, and termination of interaction) types of

behavior that two interactants elicit from each other. The way one person stops

talking and another starts in a smooth, synchronized manner may be as important

to a satisfactory interaction as the content. After all, we do make judgments about

people based on their regulatory skills; for example, we are familiar with the

descriptions “Talking to him is like talking to a wall”or “You can’t get a word in

edgewise with her.”When another person frequently interrupts or is inattentive, we

may feel this person is making a statement about the relationship, perhaps one of

disrespect. There are rules for regulating conversations, but they are generally

implicit. It is not written down, but we seem to know that two people should not

talk at the same time, that each person should get an equal number of turns at

talking if he or she desires, that a question should be answered, and so forth.

Wiemann’s (1977) research found that relatively minute changes in these regulatory

behaviors—interruptions, pauses longer than 3 seconds, unilateral topic changes,

and so on—resulted in sizable variations in how competent a communicator was

perceived to be. As listeners, we are apparently attending to and evaluating a

host of fleeting, subtle, and habitual features of the speaker’s conversational

behavior. When children first learn these rules, they use less subtle cues; for

example, they tug on clothing or raise a hand. Children are also less skilled in

accomplishing smooth turn-taking, as you will have noticed if you have conversed

with a young child on the telephone. Conversational regulators involve several

kinds of nonverbal cues. When we want to indicate that we are finished speaking

and the other person can start, we may increase our eye contact with the other

person. This is often accompanied by the vocal cues associated with ending

declarative or interrogative statements. If the other person still does not figura-

tively pick up the conversational ball, we might extend silence or interject a

“trailer”such as “you know”or “so, ah.”To keep another person from speaking

in a conversation, we have to keep long pauses from occurring, decrease eye con-

tact, and perhaps raise the volume of our voice. When we do not want to take a

speaking turn, we might give the other some reinforcing head nods, maintain

attentive eye contact, and, of course, refrain from speaking when the other begins

to yield. When we do want the floor, we might raise our index finger or enact an

audible inspiration of breath with a straightening of the posture as if ready to

take over. Rapid nodding may signal the other to hurry up and finish, but if we

have trouble getting in, we may have to talk simultaneously for a few words or

engage in stutter starts that we hope will be more easily observed cues to signal

our desire to speak.

20 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Conversational beginnings and endings also act as regulatory points. When we

are greeting others, eye contact indicates that the channels are open. A slight head

movement and an “eyebrow flash”of recognition—a barely detectable but distinct

up-and-down movement of the eyebrows—may be present. The hands are also

used in greetings for salutes, waves, handshakes, handslaps, or emblematic signals

such as the peace or victory sign, a raised fist, or a thumbs-up. Hands may also

perform grooming activities, such as running fingers through the hair, or they may

be involved in various touching activities such as kissing, embracing, or hitting

another on the arm. The mouth may form a smile or an oval shape, as if ready to

start talking (Krivonos & Knapp, 1975).

Saying good-bye in semiformal interviews was shown to elicit many nonverbal

behaviors in one study. The most common included the breaking of eye contact

more often and for longer periods of time, positioning one’s body toward an exit,

and leaning forward and nodding. Less frequent, but very noticeable, were accent-

ing behaviors that signaled, “This is the termination of our conversation, and I

don’t want you to miss it!”These accenters included explosive hand and foot

movements, such as raising the hands and/or feet and bringing them down with

enough force to make an audible slap while simultaneously using the hands and

feet as leverage to catapult the interactant out of his or her seat. A less direct mani-

festation was placing the hands on the thighs or knees in a leveraging position, as if

preparing to catapult, hoping that the other person picked up the good-bye cue

(Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, & Shulman, 1973).

PERSPECTIVE 4: HISTORICAL TRENDS IN NONVERBAL RESEARCH

The scientific study of nonverbal communication is primarily a post–World War II

activity. This does not mean we cannot find important early tributaries of knowl-

edge; even ancient Chinese, Greek, and Roman scholars commented on what we

today would consider nonverbal behavior. Quintilian’sInstitutio Oratoria, for

example, is an important source of information on gestures written in the first cen-

tury. If we were to trace the history of fields of study—such as animal behavior,

anthropology, dance, linguistics, philosophy, psychiatry, psychology, sociology,

and speech—we would no doubt find important antecedents of today’s work

(Asendorpf & Wallbott, 1982; Davis, 1979; DePaulo & Friedman, 1998; Hecht &

Ambady, 1999). Nonverbal studies never have been the province of any one partic-

ular discipline. In the last half of the 19th century, Delsarte, among others,

attempted to codify and set forth rules for managing both “voice culture”and

body movements or gestures (Shawn, 1954). Although Delsarte’s“science of

applied esthetics”and the elocutionary movement gave way to a less formal, less

stylized manner in the 20th century, it represents one of several early attempts

to identify various forms of bodily expression. One of the most influential

pre–20th-century works was Darwin’sThe Expression of the Emotions in Man

and Animals in 1872. This work sparked the modern study of facial expressions,

and many of Darwin’s observations and ideas have been validated by other

researchers (Ekman, 1973).

During the first half of the 20th century, there were isolated studies of

the voice, physical appearance and dress, and the face. An unsystematic look at

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 21

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the publications during this period suggests that studies of proxemics, the environ-

ment, and body movement received even less attention, and the least attention was

given to the investigation of eye behavior and touching. Two distinct but note-

worthy events occurred during this period: The first involved some controversial

scholarship and a scandal; the second concerned a work of extraordinary influence

in the study of nonverbal behavior.

In 1925, Kretschmer authored a book, Physique and Character. This was

followed in 1940 by Sheldon’sThe Varieties of Human Physique. These works

were based on the idea that if we precisely measure and analyze a person’s body,

we can learn much about his or her intelligence, temperament, moral worth, and

future achievement. Sheldon’s belief that certain characteristics are associated with

certain body types—the thin ectomorph, the muscular mesomorph, and the fatty

endomorph—is still debated (see Chapter 6). His work was featured on the cover

of the popular magazine Life in 1951. To develop a catalogue of body types,

Sheldon was permitted to photograph freshman students in the nude at Yale,

Wellesley, Vassar, Princeton, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, and other colleges (Rosenbaum,

1995). The students were told it was a project involving posture, and thousands

complied—including future president George H. W. Bush and future Secretary of

State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The photos have reportedly been destroyed, and

Sheldon’s personal notes indicate that he drew racial conclusions from his work.

People continue to associate certain characteristics with different body types, but the

validity of these perceptions was not proven by Sheldon or any researchers since.

In contrast, Efron’sGesture and Environment (1941) has become a classic

because it made three important contributions. Efron’s innovative and detailed

methods of studying gesture and body language, along with his framework for clas-

sifying nonverbal behavior, influenced future generations of scholars. In addition,

Efron’s work documented the important role of culture in shaping our gestures and

body movement, which at the time was contrary to the belief of many—including

Adolf Hitler—who thought that people’s behavior was not subject to much modifi-

cation by changing contexts and environments.

The 1950s showed a significant increase in the number of research efforts that

delved into nonverbal communication. Some of the milestones included the

following:

1. Birdwhistell’sIntroduction to Kinesics appeared in 1952, and Hall’sThe Silent

Language in 1959. These anthropologists were responsible for taking some

of the principles of linguistics and applying them to nonverbal phenomena,

providing new labels for the study of body movement (kinesics) and space

(proxemics), and launching a program of research in each area.

2. Trager’s 1958 delineation of the components of “paralanguage”(see Chapter 11)

greatly enhanced the precision with which we classify and study vocal cues.

3. Psychiatrist Jurgen Ruesch and photographer Weldon Kees combined their

efforts to produce a popular book titled Nonverbal Communication: Notes

on the Visual Perception of Human Relations in 1956. This was probably the

first book to use the term nonverbal communication in its title. Therapists,

including Freud, had been interested in nonverbal cues prior to the 1950s, but

this work provided additional theoretical insights into the origins, usage, and

22 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

coding of nonverbal behavior; it also provided extensive visual documentation

for the communicative role of environments.

4. Also in 1956, Maslow and Mintz’s study of the environmental effects of a

“beautiful”room and an “ugly”room was published. This oft-cited study is a

highlight in the history of environmental forces impinging on human

communication.

5. Frank’s comprehensive article “Tactile Communication”appeared in 1957 and

suggested a number of testable hypotheses about touching in human interaction.

If the 1950s produced an increase in the number of nonverbal studies, the 1960s

must be classified as a nuclear explosion of the topic. Specific areas of the body

were the subject of extensive programs of research: Exline’s work on eye behav-

ior; Davitz’s work on vocal expressions of emotion, which culminated in The

Communication of Emotional Meaning in 1964; Hess’s work on pupil dilation;

Sommer’s continued exploration of personal space and design; Goldman-Eisler’s

study of pauses and hesitations in spontaneous speech; and the study of a wide

range of body activity by Dittmann, Argyle, Kendon, Scheflen, and Mehrabian.

During this time, psychologist Robert Rosenthal and his colleagues brought

vividly to our attention the potential impact of nonverbal subtleties when they

showed how experimenters can affect the outcome of experiments—and teachers

can affect the intellectual growth of their students—through their nonverbal

behavior (Rosenthal, 1966; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Perhaps the classic

theoretical piece of the 1960s is Ekman and Friesen’s article on the origins,

usage, and coding of nonverbal behavior (Ekman & Friesen, 1969b). This article

distinguished five areas of nonverbal study that served as a guide for their own

research and ultimately that of many other researchers. These areas were

emblems, illustrators, affect displays, regulators, and adaptors.

The 1970s began with a journalist’s account of the study of nonverbal commu-

nication from the perspective of a handful of researchers. Fast’sBody Language

(1970), a best seller, was followed by a steady stream of books that attempted to

make nonverbal findings understandable and usable to the American public. These

books, in the interest of simplification and readability, often misrepresented

findings when recounting how to make a sale, detect deception, assert one’s domi-

nance, obtain a sexual partner, and so on.

Although such books aroused the public’s interest in nonverbal communication,

they incurred some anticipated fallout (Koivumaki, 1975). Readers were too often

left with the idea that reading nonverbal cues was the key to success in any human

encounter. Some of these books implied that single cues (legs apart) had single mean-

ings (sexual invitation). Not only is it important to look at nonverbal clusters of

behavior but also to recognize that nonverbal cues, like verbal ones, rarely have a

single denotative meaning. Some of these popularized accounts did not sufficiently

remind readers that the meaning of a particular behavior is often understood by

looking at the context in which the behavior occurs; for example, looking into some-

one’s eyes may reflect affection in one situation and aggression in another.

Another common reaction to such books was the concern that once the non-

verbal code was broken we would be totally transparent; people would know

everything about us because we could not control these nonverbal signals. As

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 23

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

noted earlier, we have varying degrees of conscious control over our nonverbal

behavior. Some behavior is very much under our control; other behavior is not,

but it may be once awareness is increased. Further, it may be that as soon as some-

one exhibits an understanding of your body language, you will modify it and make

adaptations. The 1970s were also a time of summarizing and synthesizing. Ekman’s

research on the human face (Emotion in the Human Face, 1972, with Friesen and

Ellsworth); Mehrabian’s research on the meaning of nonverbal cues of immediacy,

status, and responsiveness (Nonverbal Communication, 1972b); Scheflen’s kinesic

research in the framework of general systems theory (Body Language and the Social

Order, 1972); Hess’s study of pupil size (The Tell-Tale Eye, 1975b); Argyle’s study

of body movement and eye behavior (Bodily Communication, 1975; and Gaze and

Mutual Gaze, with Cook, 1976); Montagu’sTouching (1971); and Birdwhistell’s

Kinesics and Context (1970) were all attempts to bring together the growing litera-

ture, or a particular research program, in a single volume.

During the 1980s, some scholars continued to specialize, but others focused on

identifying the ways in which a variety of nonverbal signals work together to

accomplish common communicative goals: for example, getting someone to do

something for you, showing affection, and lying to someone (Patterson, 1983). It

became clear that we could not fully understand the role of nonverbal behavior in

accomplishing these goals unless we also looked at the role of co-occurring verbal

behavior and tried to develop theories about how various verbal and nonverbal

cues interact in the process (Bavelas & Chovil, 2006; Kendon, 1983; Streeck &

Knapp, 1992). Thus, we are gradually beginning to learn how to put the pieces

back together after several decades of separating them to examine them micro-

scopically. This trend is a manifestation of a larger movement to bring our research

efforts more in line with the way we know human communication occurs in life’s

laboratory (Archer, Akert, & Costanzo, 1993; Knapp, 1992; Patterson, 1984).

Therefore, nonverbal research continues to change in the following ways:

•From studying noninteractive situations to studying interactive ones

•From studying one person to studying both interactants

•From studying a single point in time to studying changes over time

•From studying single behaviors to studying multiple behaviors

•From the view that we perceive everything that occurs to acknowledging that

we need to know more about how people perceive signals during interaction

•From single-meaning and single-intent perspectives to acknowledging that

often multiple meanings occur and multiple goals exist

•From a measurement perspective focused almost exclusively on frequency and

duration to one that also includes issues related to when and how a behavior

occurs

•From attempting to control context by eliminating important and influential

elements to attempting to account for such effects

•From studying only face-to-face interaction to examining the role of nonverbal

messages in mediated communication settings (e.g., Facebook, instant messages,

texting, email).

•From an overemphasis on studying how strangers interact to one equally con-

cerned about how intimates interact

24 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

•From studying only culture or only biology as possible explanations of behav-

ior to examining the roles both play

Such a brief historical view inevitably leaves out many important contributions

(see Knapp, 2006). The preceding discussion is simply an attempt to highlight

some important developments and depict a general background for our current

perspectives.

PERSPECTIVE 5: NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Clearly, nonverbal signals are a critical part of all our communicative endea-

vors. Sometimes nonverbal signals are the most important part of our message.

Understanding and effectively using nonverbal behavior is crucial to our success

in virtually every social encounter we experience.

First impressions often have a strong impact on any given social interaction

and can affect subsequent interactions (Ambady & Skowronski, 2008). We also

know that people can make some valid inferences about others based on their

initial reading of the other’s nonverbal cues (Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick,

2009). Thus, each interaction begins with both interactants trying to draw accurate

inferences about the other and simultaneously trying to manifest the verbal and

nonverbal behavior that will give them the best shot at accomplishing their com-

municative goals. This process continues as the interaction unfolds.

Nonverbal cues such as attire, eye gaze, smiling, posture, distance, and listener

responses are just as important as choosing the right words—sometimes more so,

as Lieutenant General David McKiernan found out. In June 2003, the Boston

Globe reported that he was taken off the list of possible candidates for the top

leadership position of Army Chief of Staff because Pentagon officials observed

“bad body language.”Apparently, McKiernan was standing with his arms crossed

and did not respond in positive ways during “applause lines”while listening to a

speech given by Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq (Austin American

Statesman, 2003). Nonverbal messages are no less important in formal job inter-

views or in ongoing performance on the job, whether it involves public relations,

customer service, marketing, advertising, supervision, or leadership (DePaulo,

1992; Hecker & Stewart, 1988; Riggio, 2005). In one study, female job intervie-

wees were subjected to a sexually provocative comment. When they responded

with a fake smile (see Chapter 9) in an effort to get through this difficult situation,

males who were likely to engage in sexual harassment perceived these smiles as

flirtatious and the women as desirable. In addition to their inability to accurately

decode these fake smiles, these same men rated nonsmiling women as vulnerable

and confused (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2005).

Some occupations and leadership positions require establishing or implement-

ing policies involving nonverbal messages. Some schools and businesses have rules

about hair length, facial hair, or appropriate clothing and artifacts; sexual harass-

ment cases may hinge on determining the type of touching that occurred; and

some airlines, broadcasters, and others have been involved in lawsuits charging dis-

crimination on the basis of physical appearance. The San Francisco City Council

was reportedly discussing a ban on certain nonverbal expressions—smirks, raised

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 25

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

eyebrows, or loud guffaws—in an effort to restore civility to council debates

(Reuters, 2003).

In a remarkable study, the faces of chief executive officers of the 25 highest

and 25 lowest performing U.S. companies were rated on their leadership ability

and their power-related traits of dominance, maturity, and competence. When any

effects due to age, affect, or attractiveness were removed, the highest ratings on

leadership and power-related traits were significantly related to their company’s

profits (Rule & Ambady, 2008b).

While the consequences of the preceding studies are unquestionably important,

they are not life-threatening. But in nurse–physician interactions during a surgical

procedure, effective nonverbal communication can literally make the difference

between life and death. One teenager’s tragic death was the result of misreading

nonverbal signals: The teen was practicing sign language with his cousin, and

some of his gestures were believed by one gang to be signs of a rival gang, so they

shot the boy (Austin American Statesman, 2000). Other potentially harmful situa-

tions involving assault and abuse have been the subject of nonverbal studies.

One study analyzed the appearance and movements of people who walked

through one of the highest assault areas in New York City (Grayson & Stein,

1981). Then, prisoners who had knowledge of such matters were asked to view

the films of the potential victims and indicate the likelihood of assault. In addition

to finding that older people are a prime target, the researchers also found that

potential victims tended to move differently. Specifically, they took long or short

strides, not strides of medium length, and their body parts did not seem to move

in synchrony; that is, they seemed less graceful and fluid in their movement.

A related study, using different methods, found similar results and concluded that

a reduced vulnerability to attack is associated with any cluster of nonverbal signals

suggesting that a person has the energy to defend himself or herself and/or the

ability to escape with ease (Gunns, Johnston, & Hudson, 2002). Other studies

have tried to identify nonverbal characteristics that rapists use to select their

victims. Some rapists look for women who exhibit passivity, a lack of confidence,

and vulnerability; others prefer the exact opposite, wishing to “put an uppity

woman in her place.”The conclusion seems to recommend a nonverbal demeanor

that is confident yet not aggressive (Myers, Templer, & Brown, 1984).

Another study that assessed potentially aggressive acts focused on mothers who

abused their children (Givens, 1978a). It was noted that even while playing with

their children, these mothers communicated their dislike with nonverbal behavior

such as turning away or not smiling. Just as abusive and nonabusive mothers differ

in their nonverbal behavior, the children of abusive parents and nonabusive parents

differ in theirs (Hecht et al., 1986). Facial expressions of children in response to

violence on television may also have some predictive value for identifying aggres-

sive behavior (Ekman et al., 1972). In short, scientists are examining nonverbal

signals of both potential perpetrators of violence and potential victims of that

violence (Givens, 2007).

Once a person has been charged with a crime and the trial process begins, we

can see several important and influential sources of nonverbal cues (Peskin, 1980;

Pryor & Buchanan, 1984). One of this text’s authors received a letter from an

attorney in Florida seeking information about nonverbal behavior in order to

26 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

identify the possible effects of an appellate judge making a decision based on the

written record of the trial without the benefit of seeing or hearing any nonverbal

signals. Because of the important implications of decisions made in courtrooms

and the desire to maintain impartial communication, almost every facet of the

courtroom process is being analyzed (Searcy, Duck, & Blanck, 2005). Judges are

cautioned to minimize possible signs of partiality in their voice and positioning. In

one study, mock jurors were very much aware of judges whose nonverbal behavior

suggested a lack of involvement in the proceedings and perceived this behavior

negatively (Burnett & Badzinski, 2005). Other studies confirm the belief that the

attitudes and nonverbal cues enacted by judges do in fact influence the outcome of

a trial (Blanck & Rosenthal, 1992). In Chapter 6, several studies are reported

concerning the effects of physically attractive witnesses and defendants. In some

cases, attorneys and witnesses have been videotaped in pretrial practice sessions to

determine whether they are conveying nonverbally any messages they want to

avoid. The study of nonverbal behavior is also important to the process of jury

selection. Although this attention to nonverbal signals emanating from prospective

jurors may indicate a degree of sensitivity that did not previously exist, we need not

worry that attorneys or social scientists will become so skilled that they can rig

juries (Saks, 1976).

A list of all the situations in which nonverbal communication plays a signifi-

cant role would be almost endless and would include areas such as dance, theater,

music, film, and photography. The nonverbal symbolism of various ceremonies and

rituals—the trappings of the marriage ceremony, Christmas decorations, religious

rituals, funerals, and so on—provide stimuli that guide the responses of those

involved.

From this broad array of situations in which nonverbal communication plays a

central role, we have selected some areas that we feel are particularly meaningful

and discuss them further. In Chapter 12, we examine nonverbal behavior used in

communicating intimacy, dominance or status, identity, deception, and interaction

management. Chapter 13 is devoted to an analysis of nonverbal signals in advertis-

ing, politics, education, culture, health care, and technology.

SUMMARY

The term nonverbal is commonly used to

describe all human communication events that

transcend spoken or written words. At the same

time, we should realize that these nonverbal

events and behaviors can be interpreted through

verbal symbols. We also found that any classi-

fication scheme that separates things into two

discrete categories—verbal/nonverbal, left/right

brain, vocal/nonvocal, and so on—will not be

able to account for factors that do not seem to

fit either category. We might more appropriately

think of behaviors as existing on a continuum,

with some behaviors overlapping two continua.

We encode and decode nonverbal behaviors

with varying degrees of awareness and control.

There are times when our responses are carefully

planned, and we are very much aware of what we

are doing; there are other times when our responses

occur more automatically, and little conscious

planning and awareness is associated with them.

The decoding of nonverbal signals is often

done with the right hemisphere of the brain, but

a considerable overlapping of functions between

right and left hemispheres occurs—especially if

one side has to compensate due to surgery or

injury on the other hemisphere.

CHAPTER 1NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION:BASIC PERSPECTIVES 27

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The theoretical writings and research on non-

verbal communication can be broken down into

the following three areas:

1. The communication environment (physical

and spatial)

2. The communicator’s physical characteristics

3. Body movement and position (gestures,

posture, touching, facial expressions, eye

behavior, and vocal behavior)

Nonverbal communication should not be

studied as an isolated phenomenon but as an

inseparable part of the total communication

process. The relationship between verbal and

nonverbal behavior was illustrated in our dis-

cussion of how nonverbal behavior functions

in repeating, conflicting with, substituting for,

complementing, accenting/moderating, and regu-

lating verbal communication. Nonverbal com-

munication is important because of its role in

the total communication system, the tremendous

quantity of informational cues it gives in any

particular situation, and its use in fundamental

areas of our daily life.

This chapter also reviewed some of the his-

torical highlights, noting the current influence

of the works of Darwin, Efron, Birdwhistell,

Hall, Ruesch and Kees, Mehrabian, Rosenthal,

Ekman and Friesen, and others. We reviewed

the important roles and shortcomings of the

popular literature. The chapter concluded with

an account of the prevalence and importance

of nonverbal signals in selected areas of our

daily life.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Identify a situation in which you believe

verbal behavior was clearly more important

to the outcome of an interaction than non-

verbal behavior. Explain why.

2. Identify a situation in which you would give

more credibility to a person’s verbal behavior

when verbal and nonverbal behavior convey

different messages.

3. Discuss the most unusual or subtle nonverbal

signal or signals you have observed in an

interaction partner. What helped you assess

their meaning?

4. If you could get an instant and true answer to

any question about nonverbal communica-

tion, what would your question be?

READING RESOURCES

Because our concern is the scientific study of nonverbal

communication, we include many scholarly citations

in this book’s chapters. In addition to these specific

research works, the following are good general resources

for the student of nonverbal communication:

Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (Eds.). (2001). Interper-

sonal sensitivity:Theory and measurement.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hall, J. A., & Knapp, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook

of nonverbal communication. Berlin: de Gruyter

Mouton.

Harrigan, J. A., Rosenthal, R., & Scherer, K. R. (Eds.).

(2005). The new handbook of methods in

nonverbal behavior research. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Manusov, V. (Ed.). (2004). The sourcebook of non-

verbal measures: Going beyond words. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Manusov, V. L., & Patterson, M. L. (Eds.). (2006).

The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

[CHAPTER2]

In 1967, when David Reimer was 8 months old, his genitals were accidentally

mutilated when he was being circumcised. Subsequently, on the advice of physi-

cians, David’s parents agreed to a surgical sex change and set about raising David

as a girl. Nurture, it was believed, would triumph over nature, and David would

become “Brenda.”Despite 12 years of social, mental, and hormonal conditioning,

David never felt he was a girl. His parents gave him dolls, dressed him as a girl,

and tried in every way to reinforce his identity as Brenda. But his twin brother

expressed what others observed as well: “I recognized Brenda as my sister, but

she never, ever acted the part …when I say there was nothing feminine about

Brenda …I mean there was nothing feminine. She walked like a guy. Sat with her

legs apart. She talked about guy things …she played with my toys”(Colapinto,

2000, p. 57). It was not that Brenda did not learn what others were teaching

her about how to behave like a girl. Nurture played its part. But what surprised

everyone involved in this real-life nature/nurture experiment was the powerful

influence of genetic, or hardwired, aspects of sexual identity.

During the 20th century, the question of whether human behavior is influenced

more by nature or nurture was hotly debated. For many years the prevailing view

was that all human behavior was the result of learning. The behaviorists believed

that any differences between individuals could be erased if they experienced the

same environmental stimuli. In short, genetic heritage was presumed to be malleable.

Today, scientists tend to reject the either/or approach to the debate. Instead of trying

to argue that all of our behavior is primarily guided by nature or nurture, most

As we look back on a long phylogenetic history, which has determined our present

day anatomical, physiological, and biochemical status, it would be simply

astounding if it were found not to affect our behavior also.

—T. K. Pitcairn and I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt

29

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

believe it is wise to assume that there may be both a nature and a nurture component

associated with any given behavior that we exhibit. No doubt much of our non-

verbal behavior has both innate and learned, including imitative, aspects.

Ekman and Friesen (1969), whose work in this area is detailed later, outline

three primary sources of our nonverbal behavior:

1. Inherited neurological programs

2. Experience common to all members of the species (e.g., regardless of culture,

the hands are used to place food in the mouth)

3. Experience that varies with culture, class, family, or the individual

Biological and cultural forces overlap in many important ways. Some common

biological processes can be used to communicate—for example, breathing becomes

a sigh of relief, grief, or boredom; a hiccup becomes an imitation of a drunk’s

behavior; audible blowing through one’s nose may be interpreted as a snort of

scorn; and coughing becomes “ahem.”Later in this chapter, we discuss studies

that suggest that some aspects of facial expressions of emotion are inherited and

common to members of the human species. These studies, however, do not negate

the importance of our cultural learning in manifesting these expressions. The

neurological program for any given facial expression can be altered or modified by

learned “display rules”specific to our culture, such as men should not cry in

public. Different stimuli may trigger a given facial expression, again depending on

one’s cultural training. A snake may evoke an expression of fear in one culture

and bring out an expression of joy in another (e.g., because it is an important

food source). The society we grow up in is also largely responsible for the way we

blend two or more emotional expressions, such as showing features of surprise and

anger at the same time.

Studies of birds show clearly the joint impact of biology and environment on

behavior. The European male robin attacks strange robins that enter his territory

during the breeding season. Research using stuffed models has shown that the red

breast alone triggers this attack mechanism. The female robin who shares the nest,

however, also has a red breast and is not attacked. Thus, this aggressive behavior,

which is believed to be innate, is modified by certain conditions in the environment

or by the situation that calls forth the response. As another example, some birds

instinctively sing a song common to their own species without ever having heard

another bird sing the song. These birds may, on hearing the songs of their particu-

lar group, develop a variation on the melody that reflects a local dialect. It has also

been noted that without exposure to mature songs, the young bird’s song remains

rudimentary and imperfect. And even when a bird is born with its basic song, it

may have to learn to whom the call should be addressed, and under what circum-

stances, and how to recognize signals from other birds. Many of the inherited

components of human behavior can be modified similarly. It is like our human

predisposition for, or capacity to learn, verbal language (Lenneberg, 1969; Pinker,

1994). Although we are born with the capacity to learn language, it is not learned

without cultural training. Children isolated from human contact do not develop

linguistic competence. Some nonverbal signals probably depend primarily on inher-

ited neurological programs; others probably depend primarily on environmental

learning; and, of course, many behaviors are influenced by both.

30 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Finally, the answer to the nature/nurture issue concerning nonverbal behavior

varies with the behavior under consideration. As we see in Chapter 9, there may be

multiple origins of facial expressions of emotion. Certain nervous mannerisms or self-

touching gestures may be learned primarily as we learn to perform certain tasks and

cope with various interpersonal experiences. Some behaviors may be primarily the

product of imitating others. Some hand gestures, such as the thumbs-up gesture, are

primarily culture specific, but certain patterns of eye gaze seem to have a strong

genetic component. The stronger the learned component of nonverbal behavior, the

more we would expect to find variations across cultural, class, and ethnic lines. Note,

however, that a behavior that varies from group to group may still have a common

biological base, after cultural teachings are stripped away. How can we ever know

that a single behavior or pattern of behavior has a common biological base?

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

ACROSS EVOLUTIONARY TIME

Human beings, like other species, have evolved through a process of adaptation to

changing conditions (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992). Which nonverbal behaviors

have ancient roots in human history? On what basis do social scientists conclude that a

behavior or behavioral pattern includes an inherited component? It is not an easy task.

Some of our current behavioral displays are only fragments of larger patterns no

longer enacted in their entirety; some behaviors now embedded in rituals have little to

do with their original function; and some behavior that seems to serve one function

may be associated with something completelydifferent;forexample,self-grooming

may be the result of confusion or frustration in achieving a goal rather than a behavior

enacted for self-preservation, courtship, or cleanliness goals. And studying the fossil

record is not much help in understanding the biological roots of behavior. Despite the

difficulties inherent in any questions of phylogeny—in this case, the roots of behavior

in human evolutionary history—researchers continue to make important discoveries.

Real connections to human reproductive success and cross-cultural similarities have

been shown for various aspects of facial attractiveness, such as symmetry, as well as the

waist–hip ratio (see Chapter 6), which indicatestheymayhaveplayedaroleintheevo-

lution of our species (Floyd, 2006; Rhodes & Zebrowitz, 2002).

But the best evidence for inferences about whether a behavior has been in-

herited and is genetically transmitted to every member of the human species is

derived from as many of the following five research perspectives as possible. If we

can compile strong evidence in all five of these perspectives, our confidence in a

phylogenetic dimension reaches the highest level.

1. Evidence from sensory deprivation—noting the manifestation of a behavior in

blind and/or deaf people who could not have learned it through visual or

auditory channels

2. Evidence from neonates—observing behaviors displayed within minutes or

hours after birth

3. Evidence from identical twins reared in different environments—identifying the

behavioral similarities of people whose gene structure is known to be virtually

identical and whose learning environment is known to be very different

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 31

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

4. Evidence from other animals—showing an evolutionary continuity of a

behavior up to and including our closest relatives, nonhuman primates

5. Evidence from multicultural studies—observing the manifestation of similar

behaviors used for similar purposes in other cultures around the world, both

literate and preliterate

Research from each of these perspectivesmakesuptheremainderofthischapter.

The nonverbal behavior that has received the most scrutiny in each perspective is the

facial expression of emotion. But as BuckandPowers(2006)remindus,theoriginof

any behavioral display by an individual communicator is only part of the story. Evolu-

tion may also be responsible for “preattunements”that structure a person’spercep-

tions of these behavioral displays. For example, physical attractiveness is perceived

with a high degree of consistency, and certain facial expressions of emotion have been

decoded accurately in a variety of cultures around the world. According to Buck and

Powers, this interplay between biologically structured displays and preattunements

“creates the basis for the socialorganizationofthespecies”(p. 120).

EVIDENCE FROM SENSORY DEPRIVATION

Many have observed the early appearance of nonverbal behavior in children.

Perhaps the behaviors are learned quickly. To verify such a hypothesis, we need to

examine children who, because of being blind and deaf at birth, could not learn

such behaviors from visual or auditory cues. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1973, 1975; Pitcairn &

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1976) filmed several blind/deaf children between the ages of 2 and

10 and reached conclusions similar to those of others who have systematically

compared the behavior of blind/deaf children with sighted/hearing children. His

conclusion was that the spontaneous expressions of sadness, crying, laughing,

smiling, pouting, anger, surprise, and fear are not significantly different in blind/

deaf children. Smiling, crying, and laughing sequences filmed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt are

shown in Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3.

Some might argue that such expressions could be learned by blind/deaf

children by touching or through a slow reinforcement program. Eibl-Eibesfeldt

points out, however, that even babies born with no arms or other severe birth

defects because their mothers took the drug thalidomide while they were pregnant,

as well as children who could hardly be taught to raise a spoon to their mouths,

showed similar expressions.

Galati, Scherer, and Ricci-Bitti (1997), Galati, Miceli, and Sini (2001), and Galati,

Sini, Schmidt, and Tinti (2003) found similar results with sighted and congenitally

blind children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years. Spontaneous expressions of

sadness, anger, joy, fear, disgust, surprise, and interest were filmed and coded with

Ekman and Friesen’s Facial Action Coding System (see Chapter 9). There were few

differences between the expressions of the sighted and blind children, and judges who

looked at the faces were able to accurately identify the situations that triggered the

expressions for both. Thus, being able to see the facial expressions of others does not

seem to provide a significant advantage in being able to make basic facial displays.

In addition to facial expressions, the deaf/blind children studied by Eibl-Eibesfeldt

also showed other patterns of movement exhibited by sighted children. They sought

32 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

contact with others by stretching out one or both hands, wanted to be embraced and

caressed when distressed, and, as the pictures in Figure 2-4 reveal, showed a remark-

ably familiar sequence of refusal gestures.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt also reports some interesting eye patterns of blind children.

When he complimented a 10-year-old girl on her piano playing, she looked at

him, coyly looked down and away, and then looked at him again. A similar

sequence was recorded for an 11-year-old boy when asked about his girlfriend.

This sequence of turning toward and away is also seen in sighted children under

similar circumstances. Magnusson (2006) observed some similarities in the way

sighted and blind communicators managed conversational turn-taking and dis-

played turn exchange and regulation, like nodding and smiling, but fewer similari-

ties were observed with the congenitally blind than with those whose blindness was

the result of an accident. Lastly, hearing individuals can decode the dynamic facial

displays used in American Sign Language by the deaf to communicate emotion

states (e.g., anger, surprise) and “language-specific grammatical constructs,”such

as questions about who, what, or why, presumably because of similarities in the

facial expressions used by both groups of people (Grossman & Kegl, 2007).

ab

cd

FIGURE 2-1

Blind/deaf smiling response filmed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt. The head is lifted and tilted back as the intensity increases.

Source: From I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, “The Expressive Behavior of the Deaf-and Blind Born,”in M. von Cranach and I. Vine, Social Communication

and Movement. New York: Academic Press, 1973 and with permission from Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 33

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

However, the facial expressions of blind/deaf children and blind children may

be different in some ways when compared with those of sighted and hearing

children. These differences are particularly evident as the children grow older and

learn certain display rules by looking at the way others perform expressions. For

example, subtle gradations in the onset and passing of expressions were not

observed as often in the blind/deaf children; their expressions seemed to quickly

ab

cd

ef

FIGURE 2-2

Blind/deaf crying response filmed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

Source: Filmed by I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt in T. K. Pitcairn and I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, “Concerning the Evolution of Nonverbal Communication in Man,”

in M. E. Hahn and E. C. Simmel, Communicative Behavior and Evolution. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

34 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

appear and suddenly disappear, leaving the face blank. Display rules about the

suitable intensity of expressions is another lesson blind/deaf children appear to be

less familiar with; for example, how intense crying and laughing should be in various

situations. Sighted children also seemed more likely than blind children to learn a dis-

play rule for masking negative emotions (Galati, Miceli, & Sini, 2001; Galati, Sini,

Schmidt, & Tinti, 2003). The general absence of facial blends among the blind/deaf

suggests that this may also depend on learning. Making voluntary expressions—that

is, mimicking facial expressions—is also a learned behavior, and young deaf children

do not perform this skill very well. But at least one study suggests that congenital

blindness does not prevent adults from producing expressions that are as accurately

decoded as those of sighted adults (Galati, Scherer, & Ricci-Bitti, 1997). All of these

findings point to a joint role for innate predispositions and social learning.

FIGURE 2-3

Blind/deaf laughing response filmed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

Source: From I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, “The Expressive Behavior of the Deaf-and Blind Born,”in M. von Cranach and I. Vine, Social Communication

and Movement. New York: Academic Press, 1973 and with permission from Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 35

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Thus far, the focus has been on the encoding (i.e., production) of nonverbal

information among the blind/deaf. Regarding decoding nonverbal cues, children

who have been blind/deaf since birth obviously have not had the opportunity to

see other people’s facial expressions/to hear people speak. However, recent tech-

nological advances—with more surely to come—may afford these children the

opportunity to decode such nonverbal information for the first time. Cochlear

implants (CI), for example, permit deaf children to perceive sound. Research with

children who had been deaf since infancy and later equipped with a CI in their

right ear found that, although these children could identify the emotional meaning

of facial expressions, they had difficulty recognizing emotion in voices (Hopyan-

Misakyan, Gordon, Dennis, & Papsin, 2009). This difficulty might stem from

shortcomings in the CI design or suggest that there is a critical period for learning

how to decode emotion cues from voices.

ab

cd

ef

FIGURE 2-4

A blind/deaf child refusing an offer of a tortoise. The child sniffs at the object and pushes it back

while simultaneously lifting her head in a movement of withdrawal. Finally, she puts out her

hand in a gesture of warding off.

Source: From I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, “The Expressive Behavior of the Deaf-and Blind Born,”in M. von Cranach and

I. Vine, Social Communication and Movement. New York: Academic Press, 1973 and with permission from Irenäus

Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

36 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

EVIDENCE FROM INFANTS

There is evidence that newborns come into this world prepared to receive certain

nonverbal cues from their mothers. At the neurological level, for example, new-

borns appear to respond differently to their mother’s breast milk than they do to

formula, showing greater oxygenated blood flow to the orbitofrontal region of

their brain to the former than to the latter (Aoyama et al., 2010). At the behavioral

level, newborns show less distress in response to heel sticks when they are exposed

to the odor of their own mother’s breast milk as opposed to that of another

woman or formula (Nishitani et al., 2009). These results do not imply that new-

borns do not learn maternal odors outside the womb. Indeed, there is evidence

that newborns have a sensitive period for learning new odors (minutes after birth)

(Romantshik, Porter, Tillmann, & Varendi, 2007). However, particularly impor-

tant maternal nonverbal cues, such as those linked to sustenance, may be learned

in utero, due to their importance in ensuring the survival of the newborn.

Newborn babies are born ready to process certain nonverbal cues that they

could not have learned in utero, such as the human face (Pascalis & Kelly, 2009),

as well as the jointly occurring gaze and voice of an adult (Guellai & Streri,

2011), as they presumably begin the task of identifying others. In addition, within

days of birth, newborns spend more time looking at happy faces than fearful ones,

suggesting that experiences outside the womb have shaped their preference for

happy expressions (Farroni, Menon, Rigato, & Johnson, 2007).

DID YOU MAKE SCENTS TO YOUR MOTHER EVEN AT BIRTH?

Yes!

Our signature communicates our uniqueness as an

individual to others. As adults, others recognize who we

are by how we write our name. At birth, our mothers can

recognize who we are by how we smell.Itappearswe

have an “olfactory signature”(see Chapter 6). As evi-

dence of this, postpartum women are able to quickly tell

by scent alone which clothes were worn by their baby as

opposed to another woman’sbaby.

A human mother’s ability to recognize her offspring by

scent would be an example of evolutionary conservation.

That ability is there because, presumably, it has been an

effective means of offspring recognition among animals over a great span of time. Offspring recognition is

important because it is needed for the establishment and maintenance of the parent–child bond. Without that

bond, an offspring—and thus the parents’genes—might not survive. Therefore, being able to recognize an

offspring’s olfactory signature must have worked (in an evolutionary sense) for mothers, whether she is a

ewe or human.

Human mothers can identify their offspring using other nonverbal cues as well, including the cry of their

baby, the tactile characteristics of their baby’s hand, and the visual features of their baby’s face. Thus, infant rec-

ognition among human mothers likely involves the integration of multiple nonverbal cues, which they quickly

associate with their baby. This ability distinguishes humans from ungulates in which infant recognition

depends more heavily on offspring odor, and is likely due to the greatly expanded neocortex in humans.

Kati Molin/Shutterstock.com

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 37

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Newborn babies also seem to have the facial muscle actions necessary to

express virtually all the basic affect displays of adults (Oster & Ekman, 1978).

The questions of interest in the remainder of this section are whether newborns

show affect displays resembling those of adults, and if so, do those displays convey

the same emotions as they do in adults? Here the evidence is mixed, partly because

of intrinsic difficulties in determining what emotion a baby is experiencing.

Researchers disagree on this important question: Does an infant’s facial reper-

toire consist of undifferentiated expressions of arousal and distress, which are then

shaped by experience, or is a baby born with a biologically based predisposition

to display the full repertoire of emotional expressions identified in adults? Much

research has been inspired by the latter view, which is embodied in what has become

known as differential emotions theory (Izard, 1977; Izard & Malatesta, 1987). This

proposes a strong genetic basis for facial expressions, and thus, emotions would

produce the same distinctive facial patterns in both infants and adults.

Infants only a few months old do display some expressions consistent with

prototypical emotional displays in adults—specifically expressions for joy, surprise,

and interest (Oster, Hegley, & Nagel, 1992). These expressions are also easily rec-

ognizable by untrained observers as representing those emotions. This does not

mean, of course, that the infants were actually experiencing those emotions, only

that the facial configurations match the adult prototypes (Camras, 1994). For the

negative emotions, however, evidence indicates that discrete expressions correspond-

ing to adults’expressions of emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, and sadness do

not exist in young infants (Camras, Sullivan, & Michel, 1993; Oster, Hegley, &

Nagel, 1992). Stenberg, Campos, and Emde (1983), though, found the capacity

to express anger to be well developed in infants by 7 months of age, and that the

attending facial expression was reliably detected in the absence of contextual

information.

To date, the data from infant studies do not provide complete support for

a biological root to discrete facial expressions of emotion. Moreover, it has been

pointed out that too much emphasis on finding adults’expressions in infants

might lead researchers to make several errors, including the following:

1. They may reach erroneous conclusions about what emotions are actually being

felt; just because an infant and an adult show the same expression, we do not

know they are feeling the same emotion.

2. They may fail to observe distinctive infant emotional expressions that do not

happen to match up with adult expressions (Barrett, 1993; Oster, Hegley, &

Nagel, 1992).

All researchers seem to agree, however, that infants’faces convey information

about their states; that more research is needed to uncover exactly what is being

conveyed and what regularities exist in the developmental unfolding of emotional

expression; and that socialization still plays a crucial role.

The study of pain expression in infants and adults also yields information on the

biological basis of expression and seems a less debatable topic than the expression

of basic emotions. It is easy to argue that the adaptive advantage of being able to

engage adult care from the earliest moments of life would lead to the evolution of

an innate program for displaying pain (Prkachin & Craig, 1995). Expressions of

38 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

pain in infants, even in newborns, are highly similar to those observed in adults.

These are the five most consistently seen facial movements:

1. A lowered brow

2. Eyes squeezed tightly shut

3. Vertical wrinkles at the side of the nose (the nasolabial furrow)

4. Open lips and mouth

5. A taut, cupped tongue (Grunau & Craig, 1990)

Computer-based technology has been used to measure how a neonate’s face

changes in expression after he or she has been exposed to a painful stimulus, such

as a heel stick. These changes include mouth opening, drawing in of the eyebrows,

and closing of the eyes (Schiavenato et al., 2008). Moreover, when a male neonate

is experiencing more pain (e.g., from a circumcision without analgesia), he opens his

mouth vertically wider than does a male neonate feeling less pain (e.g., from a heel

stick) (Schiavenato, Butler-O’Hara, & Scovanner, 2011). A wider mouth may be an

important cue to felt pain to know, especially given that, although adults routinely rec-

ognize facial signs of pain, there is evidence that observers also tend to underestimate

the extent of pain in infants (and adults for that matter) (Prkachin & Craig, 1995).

Research on imitation highlights the complex intertwining of biology and

socialization in the development of expression. The early ability to imitate others’

expressions may be inherited and may ultimately play a role in the development of

various facial displays. Meltzoff and Moore (1977, 1983a, 1983b) demonstrated

that 12- to 21-day-old infants imitated adults who performed four actions: tongue

protrusion, mouth opening, lip protrusion, and sequential finger movement (see

Figure 2-5). Subsequent research replicated the findings for tongue protrusion and

mouth opening for neonates 0.7 to 71 hours old. Their experiments seem to negate

explanations for such behavior based on innate releasing mechanisms similar to

those found in many animals as well as on learning processes linked to caregiver

behavior. Instead, they argue that infants are born with the ability to use what they

call intermodal equivalencies, which means the infant is able to use the “equivalence

between the act seen and the act done as the fundamental basis for generating the

behavioral match.”Perception and production, then, are closely linked and mediated

by a common representational system from birth (cf., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).

The Meltzoff and Moore research is complemented by other studies (Field,

Woodson, Greenberg, & Cohen, 1982) that examined the imitation of specific

facial displays of emotion by 2-day-old infants (see Figure 2-6). These findings sup-

port those of Meltzoff and Moore and indicate that the ability to discriminate and

imitate happy, sad, and surprised facial expressions is one with which children

enter their social environment.

Perhaps even more significant for understanding the early processes of learning

and socialization is the finding that 9-month-old infants can imitate behavior from

memory after a 24-hour delay (Meltzoff, 1985, 1988a; Meltzoff & Gopnik, 1989),

and 14-month-olds can accurately imitate a sequence of acts after a week’sdelay

(Meltzoff, 1988b). The early integration of cognitive, linguistic, and communicative

development is also demonstrated by the infant’sabilitytoprocessvisuallytheconnec-

tion between mouth shape and sound; for example, that the “ah”sound comes from a

mouth with the lips wide open and the “ee”sound comes from a mouth with corners

pulled back (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982). In one study, 4- and 6-month-old infants were

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 39

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

able to discriminate languages, French andEnglish,fromthefacialmovementthey

saw on silent videotapes (Weikum et al., 2007).

EVIDENCE FROM TWIN STUDIES

Monozygotic (i.e., identical) twins are sometimes separated at birth and reared in

very different environments. Because their genetic similarity is known, it is possible

to compare and contrast their abilities and behavior to determine how much nature

and nurture contribute to each.

Plomin (1989) provided an extensive review of the research using identical and

fraternal twins as well as adopted children. This research shows a substantial hered-

itary influence—usually about 50 percent for identical twins—on the following

items: job satisfaction; religious interests, attitudes, and values; IQ; vocational inter-

ests; reading disability; mental retardation; extraversion; emotionality; sociability;

alcoholism; and delinquency and criminal behavior. Extensive studies at the University

of Minnesota of identical twins reared apart indicate the amount of genetic

influence on a behavior can be high, but it varies with the behavior in question.

ab c

FIGURE 2-5

Sample photographs from videotape recordings of 2- to 3-week-old infants imitating (a) tongue

protusion, (b) mouth opening, and (c) lip protrusion demonstrated by an adult experimenter.

Source: Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates.

Science, 198,75–78. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

40 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 2-6

Sample photographs of model’s happy, sad, and surprised expressions and infant’s corresponding

expressions.

Source: Field, T., Woodson, R., Greenberg, R. & Cohen, D. (1982) Discrimination and imitation of facial expressions

by neonates. Science, 218(8), 179–181. Tiffany.

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 41

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

General intelligence, for example, has a fairly strong genetic influence—50 to 70

percent—whereas personality traits are about 50 percent genetic, occupational

interests 40 percent, and social attitudes about 34 percent (Segal, 1999). The

genetic influence on behaviors can be substantial, but nongenetic factors such

as family and nonfamily environment are responsible for at least half of the

variance in most complex behaviors. Even though genes may account for half of

the variance associated with a particular behavior, note that this is almost never a

highly deterministic, single-gene influence. And just because we have a genetically

based predisposition to behave in a particular way does not mean that these beha-

viors are unalterable or that they will even be displayed.

Despite the intriguing results from a variety of behavioral areas, there is very

little systematic research that bears specifically on nonverbal behavior. Pairs of

monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins from the Minnesota Study of Twins

Reared Apart project had their facial expressions coded as they watched emotion-

inducing films (Kendler et al., 2008). MZ twins showed greater similarity in their

facial expressions than did DZ twins, suggesting the heritability of facial displays

of emotion. In another analysis of identical twins reared apart, some statistical evi-

dence showed striking similarities between twins in vocal pitch, tone, and talkative-

ness (Farber, 1981). Other mannerisms such as posture, laughter, style of walking,

head turning, and wrist flicking were also observed as “more alike than any quanti-

fiable trait the observers were able to measure.”Farber goes on to say, “Possibly the

most interesting observation over the years was that many sets had identical ‘body

languages’—that is, they unconsciously moved and gestured in the same way, even

when they had not had an opportunity for mutual identification”(p. 90).

Researchers at the University of Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption

Research echo these observations (Bouchard, 1984, 1987; Segal, 1999). For example,

Segal says,

One of my favorite tasks was faithfully capturing hand gestures, head positions, foot

tapping and energy level in one-hour videotaped sessions of each twin alone, followed

by half-hour videotaped sessions of the twins together. Distinctive physical expressions

co-occurring in identical twins reared apart suggest that genetic factors are involved.

Jerry Levey and Mark Newman, identical [twin] volunteer firemen, held pinky fingers

under cans of Budweiser beer long before they met. [See Figure 2-7] Other pairs were

notorious for swaying side-to-side while walking, accenting long slender fingers with

abundant jewelry, and belting out warm, rich laughter. (pp. 143–144)

When asked to stand against a wall for a series of photographs, identical twins in

the University of Minnesota studies frequently assumed the same posture and

hand positions; this happened only occasionally with fraternal twins reared apart.

One pair of identical male twins reared apart had grown similar beards, had their

hair cut similarly, and wore similar shirts and wire-rimmed glasses. Their photo

shows them both with thumbs hooked into their pants tops. Another pair of female

twins both started crying at the slightest provocation, and it was later learned that

each had behaved in this manner since childhood. These unsystematic observations

do not prove anything about heredity and nonverbal behavior; they only suggest

intriguing avenues for research.

Most of the studies comparing twins reared apart have emphasized responses to

paper-and-pencil tests. But it seems reasonable to assume that detailed observational

42 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

studies will indicate a hereditary influence associated with behavior as well. For

example, studies of twins show an inherited component to the trait of extraversion

(Pedersen, Plomin, McClearn, & Friberg, 1988; Viken, Rose, Kaprio, & Koskenvuo,

1994), and we know that certain nonverbal behaviors, such as faster speech, are

associated with the trait of extraversion. Therefore, it is possible that these and

other nonverbal cues related to extraversion are common between identical

twins. Twin studies have also shown a strong hereditary basis for social anxiety

(Beatty, Heisel, Hall, Levine, & LaFrance, 2002; Beatty, Marshall, & Rudd, 2001).

Nonverbal behaviors associated with nervousness and tension are logically linked to

social anxiety, but we also know learning can play an important role in controlling

such behavior. Other relationship styles such as aggressiveness, in which heredity also

seems to play an important part, may eventually reveal more about the extent to which

nonverbal behavior has an innate foundation. But until more twin studies are done in

which nonverbal behavior is the specific focus, we have to rely too much on tantaliz-

ing, but incomplete, anecdotal observations and reasoned inferences.

Brain imaging studies should offer one intriguing avenue of insight into the

possible role of genes in individual differences in the processing of nonverbal

behavior. Anokhin, Golosheykin, and Heath (2010), for example, recorded the

brain activity (specifically, event-related brain potentials [ERPs]) of MZ and DZ

twins who watched a face change in expression from neutral, happy, and fearful.

The authors noted that 36 to 64 percent of the individual variation in the ERPs

to these changes in facial expression can be attributed to genetic factors.

FIGURE 2-7

Identical twins Jerry Levey and Mark Newman were reared apart yet both became volunteer firefighters. For a

photograph of how they both hold a beer can with a pinky finger underneath, see Segal (1999, p. 144).

Dr. Nancy L. Segal

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 43

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

EVIDENCE FROM NONHUMAN PRIMATES

Human beings are primates, as are apes and monkeys. If we observe our nonhu-

man primate relatives manifesting behaviors similar to ours in similar situations,

we are more confident that such behavior has phylogenetic origins.

For Charles Darwin, evidence of similarities in expressive behavior across differ-

ent species constituted important support for his theory of evolution. For Darwin,

the increasing use of the face, voice, and body for emotional and communica-

tive purposes demonstrated the process of evolutionary advancement. Darwin

wrote:

With mankind some expressions, such as the bristling of the hair under the influence

of extreme terror, or the uncovering of the teeth under that of furious rage, can hardly

be understood, except on the belief that man once existed in a much lower and animal-

like condition. The community of certain expressions in distinct, though allied species,

as in the movements of the same facial muscles during laughter by man and by various

monkeys, is rendered somewhat more intelligible if we believe in their descent from a

common progenitor. (1872/1998, p. 19)

Among vertebrates, the functionality of a rich repertoire of expressive and signaling

behaviors is clearly related to the complexity of a species’social organization. We

need only compare the differing number of facial muscles possessed by a lizard to

those of a monkey to understand why Darwin considered expression a critical link

in the argument for evolution.

Before we begin emphasizing similarities, we should acknowledge some impor-

tant differences in human and nonhuman primates. Human beings make little use

of changes in body color, but we do have an extensive repertoire of gestures that

attend our verbal language. Apes, monkeys, and chimpanzees use almost no refer-

ential gestures with each other (Pika, Liebal, Call, & Tomasello, 2005; Pika &

Mitani, 2006). We also seem to have a greater variety of facial blends, and our

response repertoire is not nearly as limited to immediate and direct stimuli. And

although other animals are capable of complex acts, the level of complexity, con-

trol, and modification shown by the human animal may be hard to match.

Behavioral similarities are often linked to common biological and social pro-

blems that confront human and nonhuman primates: for example, mating, groom-

ing, avoiding pain, expressing emotional states, rearing children, cooperating in

groups, developing leadership hierarchies, defending, establishing contact, and main-

taining relationships. Chimpanzees, like humans, form political alliances to gain

power, show empathy for those in distress, do favors for others, and reconcile after

a fight with a touch or embrace (de Waal, 2002). Figure 2-8 shows some of these sim-

ilarities in grooming and bodily contact. Of the many behaviors that might be

explored for evolutionary roots (Altmann, 1968; Thorpe, 1972; van Hooff, 1973),

we focus on three: facial expressions, perception of the color red on conspecifics,

and eye behavior during greetings.

Studies comparing the facial displays of nonhuman primates and human beings

find that the “tense-mouth display”of nonhuman primates (see Figure 2-9) shows

social and morphological kinship to anger on human faces. When circumstances trig-

ger a combination of anger and fear, nonhuman primates manifest a threat display

(see Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11). In human beings, this most closely resembles a

44 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 2-8

Upper left: Signaling connection in human couple. Upper right: Two chimpanzees signaling

connection. Middle left: Rhesus monkey mother with child. Middle right: Sonjo children

clasping each other in fright. Lower left: Social grooming of vervet monkeys. Lower right: Social

grooming among Balinese women.

Source: Upper left, Middle left, Middle right, Lower right: Courtesy of I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt from I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt,

Ethology: The Biology of Behavior, 2nd ed., New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1975. Upper right: Minden

Pictures/Masterfile. Lower left: Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 45

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 2-9

A tense-mouth display by an adult female rhesus monkey. Ears are flattened, brows are raised,

the gaze is fixed and staring, jaws are close together, and lips are compressed. Teeth are not

prominently exposed, although this animal is highly disposed toward attack. Angry humans

display a similar configuration.

FIGURE 2-10

An adult female rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) displaying a facial threat. Notice that the

teeth are not prominently exposed. Ears are flattened against the head, the brow is raised, the

gaze is fixed and staring, nostrils are flared, and the upper lip is rounded over the teeth.

Used with permission of SRI International

46 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

blend of anger in the mouth—an open-mouthed anger expression—and fear in the

eye area (Redican, 1982).

Figure 2-12 provides both written and visual descriptions of probable evolution-

ary paths for facial displays of anger in three living primates. It shows evolutionary

dead ends for some expressions and continuity for others. Chevalier-Skolnikoff has

FIGURE 2-11

Facial expressions of Macaca arctoides according to intensity and emotion. Note that on the

anger axis (top row, left to right) as the monkey becomes increasingly angry, the stare intensifies,

the ears are brought forward, the hair is raised over the head and neck, the lips are tightened

and contracted, and the mouth is opened. On the fear axis (left column, top to bottom) as the

animal’s fear increases, the gaze is averted; the ears are drawn back against the head, where they

do not show; and the lips are retracted horizontally and vertically, baring the teeth.

Reading left to right, and from top to bottom, these are the expressions: (a) Neutral face.

(b) “Stare”: mild, confident threat. (c) “Round-mouthed stare”: intense, confident threat.

(d) Slight “grimace”: slight fear. (e) A mild fear–anger blend. (f) “Open-mouthed stare”:

moderately confident, intense threat. (g) Extreme “grimace”: extreme fear. (h) Mild “bared-teeth

stare”: extreme fear blended with anger. (i) “Bared-teeth stare”: intense fear–anger blend.

Source: From Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973, p. 27. Drawn by Eric Stoelting.

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 47

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

proposed similar phylogenetic chains for expressions of happiness, such as smiling

and laughter, and sadness with and without crying (Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973;

van Hooff, 1972). Like human beings, nonhuman primates may accompany their

emotional facial displays with complementary cues in other body regions: for

example, they may display raised hair or muscle tenseness. Varying degrees of

FIGURE 2-12

A between-species analysis and probable evolutionary paths for facial expressions of anger.

(a) The closed mouth, Type I Angry Face in humans has an equivalent in both macaques and

chimpanzees. In all species, the mouth is closed, the eye gaze is direct, and brows are either

pulled down and together or raised and lowered. (b) This anger display has no equivalent in

human beings. In macaques and chimpanzees, the mouth is partly opened with lips covering

teeth. The macaques’mouth is rounded. The gaze is direct and accompanied by a roar or bark.

(c) This anger display is found only in macaques. The common elements are direct gaze, jaws

slightly to moderately open, accompanied by a roar or bark. Macaques will raise and lower their

brows, and sometimes the lips will not cover the lower teeth. (d) An equivalent of this open

mouth, Type II Angry Face in humans is found in all the nonhuman primates identified here.

Direct gaze; lower eyelids tensed, often producing a squint; brows lowered and pulled together;

jaws moderately open in a rectangular form with teeth showing are all part of the human display.

Words often accompany this display, as do screams and shrieks in other species.

Source: From Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973, p. 27. Drawn by Eric Stoelting.

48 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

intensity, as well as blending, can also be produced by nonhuman primates (see

Figure 2-11).

Extensive studies of different species of macaques also demonstrate a wide

variety in the social functions served by particular facial expressions. Thus, even

within these closely related monkey species, the same facial expression can be

used with different overall frequencies and can have different meanings. For

example, there are “remarkable species differences with respect to the exact

social meaning of the silent bared-teeth display”or fear grimace (Preuschoft,

1995, p. 201) shown in Figure 2-13. This grimace usually signifies submissive-

ness and appeasement in species marked by rigid status hierarchies. However,

in species in which status differences are weakly expressed, the expression

has converged with other expressions—for example, the “play face”shown in

Figure 2-14 and the “open-mouthed bared-teeth display,”a more extreme

version of the grimace—to signify genuinely affiliative and reciprocal social inter-

action, such as during greeting, grooming, embracing, or huddling, and also to

reassure a lower-ranking partner. The likely relation to human smiling has long

been noted by primate researchers (van Hooff, 1972). Thus, in species marked

by a reduction of power asymmetry and an increased overlap of interests among

interactants, there has occurred an “evolutionary emancipation of silent bared-

teeth display from its originally fearful motivation”(Preuschoft, 1995, p. 209).

Such evidence that the same expression can have a diversity of meanings and

functions among macaques should caution researchers of human expressions not

to leap to simplistic conclusions about what human expressions mean based on

the primate evidence.

FIGURE 2-13

A grimace by an adult female rhesus macaque. Teeth receive a prominent frontal exposure in this

and related compound displays.

Used with permission of SRI International

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 49

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Many of our facial expressions have evolved from noncommunicative beha-

viors such as attacking, moving toward or away from things, self-protective

movements, and movements associated with respiration and vision. Chevalier-

Skolnikoff argues, for instance, that

threat postures of most primates contain elements derived from attack (mouth open and

ready for biting) and locomotion toward (body musculature tense and ready to advance),

while the submissive postures contain elements derived from protective responses

(retraction of lips and ears) and locomotion away from the sender. (1973, p. 30)

Thus, a behavior such as flight from an enemy, which was originally critical

to survival, may eventually become associated with feelings of fear and/or anger. It

is possible, then, that an expression of fear and/or anger may appear even if the

original behavior (fleeing) is unnecessary; for example, a monkey that feels fearful

when approaching a female to copulate. The facial display has, over time, become

associated with a particular feeling state and appears when that feeling state is

aroused. It is likely that those animals that substituted facial expressions of threat

for actual attack and fighting probably had a higher survival rate and, in turn, passed

on this tendency to succeeding generations. Similarly, our greater dependence on

signals received visually—rather than through smell, for instance—may have

been especially adaptive as our ancestors moved into open areas and increased

in physical size.

FIGURE 2-14

A playful chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) displaying the primate equivalent to the human laugh

and pleasurable smile.

Michael Lyster, London, 1982

50 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

To this point, our focus has been on our closest living relatives: nonhuman pri-

mates. Although these studies may seem most relevant to us, it is worth noting that

nonprimates also show discriminable facial displays. The open-mouth display is

seen in reptiles, and the flattening of the ears in situations evoking threat or star-

tle is seen in most mammals. Some discriminable facial displays in greeting,

grooming, submission, and threat have been identified in fur seals and walruses

(Miller, 1975).

Humans and nonhuman primates need to be able to not only encode emotional

information on the face but also interpret facial cues and expressions, as they both

live in group settings in which others communicate emotional information to them.

Lemurs follow the gaze of other lemurs as they move about in naturalistic settings

(Shepherd & Platt, 2008).

Rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees can discriminate between the facial expres-

sions of conspecifics (Parr & Heintz, 2009; Parr, Waller, & Heintz, 2008). And

great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) might be able to use facial expres-

sions to infer behavior. Buttelmann, Call, and Tomasello (2009) had great apes

observe a male human reacting happily to what was inside one container and in a

disgusted fashion to what was inside another container. Afterward, the apes saw

the human eating food. When given the opportunity, the apes were more likely

to choose the container that the human had shown disgust toward, presumably

inferring that there was still food in there (i.e., the human had eaten the food in

the other container). This finding suggests that great apes can infer how a human

had behaved toward two containers of hidden food based on the human’s prior

emotion reactions to each.

We also can look at psychological reactions to color as well as entire sequences

of behavior that may have some genetic components and evolutionary origins. For

example, there appear to be parallels in how humans and nonhuman primates

react to seeing the color red on a conspecific in particular settings. Human males

and male rhesus macaques seem to perceive dominance in opponents wearing red

in competitive situations (Hill & Barton, 2005; Khan, Levine, Dobson, & Kralik,

2011), and human males and male chacma baboons appear to perceive greater

“sexiness”in their respective female counterparts when those females are display-

ing red on their body or, in the case of humans, appearing in a red background or

wearing red clothing (Bielert, Girolami, & Jowell, 1989; Elliot & Niesta, 2008;

Roberts, Owen, & Havlicek, 2010). Similarly, human females and female rhesus

macaques appear to more sexually attracted to males wearing red clothes or dis-

playing reddened faces, respectively (Roberts, Owen, & Havlicek, 2010; Waitt,

Lane, & Head, 2003). The color redonthebodymaysignalsexualmaturation

or receptiveness in male and female humans and nonhuman primates alike, result-

ing in similarities in how each responds to conspecifics displaying that color in

specific settings (e.g., mating).

Many factors affect the way greetings are handled: place, time, relationship

between the greeters, and so forth. With so many sources of potential variation,

it is noteworthy when we find seemingly invariant patterns. Pitcairn and

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1976) observed the eye behavior of adult human beings, human

infants and children, blind persons, and nonhuman primates in greeting rituals

and found some remarkable similarities. In each case there was a pattern of looking

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 51

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

at the anticipated interaction partner from a distance and looking at them during

the greeting at a closer range and as interaction began; then there was a period of

looking away prior to reestablishing gaze for interaction. They believe this behavior

is a “stream of activity which, once started, must continue to the end”and that

there is a strong possibility of a genetic or inherited program behind it.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s studies of what he calls basic interaction strategies in several

different cultures led him to conclude that rules related to dominance, bonding

affiliation, and the fear of these are at the root of both verbal and nonverbal

human behavioral displays, whether in greeting, trying to block aggression, getting

the focus of attention, or persuading a partner to give you something. But he

acknowledges that cultural teachings and environmental factors may play an enor-

mous role in making these strategies seem very different from one culture to another.

Still, his observations of children in various cultures led him to state,

We can assume there exists a system of universal rules that structure social interac-

tions, verbal and nonverbal alike. These rules could be rooted in certain panhuman

dispositions that channel the acquisition of norms, and some norms may even be

encoded in reference patterns given to us as phylogenetic adaptations. (1988, p. 114)

Although Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s view may be perceived as overstated or radically

deterministic, given the evidence he provides for behavioral universality, his obser-

vations do open the door for consideration of entire chains or sequences of behavior

involved in relating to our fellow human beings that may be rooted in our biological

makeup. Cappella (1991), Buck and Powers (2006), and others argue convincingly

that a biological foundation for certain patterns of interaction—responses of both

interactants—in humans also exists.

EVIDENCE FROM MULTICULTURAL STUDIES

Human beings the world over have two basic adaptive problems to solve: how to

stay alive and how to raise their offspring to a reproductive age. Solutions to these

problems might have evolved because they were successful in dealing with these

two problems, and thus are part of our human heritage. Such solutions would be

biological (e.g., the configuration of facial muscles; the ability to run), psychologi-

cal (e.g., the ability to experience emotion states), and social (e.g., the ability to

communicate with others verbally and nonverbally) in nature. To use an overly

simplified example, when confronted by a predator, those humans who could expe-

rience fear, could display that emotion on their face, or could understand the emo-

tional meaning of that expression in others might have been more likely to survive,

assuming those abilities were also associated with the motivational behavior of flee-

ing the situation. To the extent that nonverbal communication aided our survival

and ability to reproduce, it would not be surprising to find cross-cultural similarities

in how humans communicate emotional and social information to one another.

If we observe human beings in different environments with different cultural guide-

lines similarly encoding and/or decoding particular nonverbal behaviors, we will develop

increasing confidence that inherited components of the species may be responsible.

Nonetheless, even though multicultural similarities may be attributable to a common

human inheritance, such observations are not absolute proof of innateness. It only

52 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

means that the cause of similarities across cultures is due to something people have in

common, and thus makes a genetic explanation a possible one to explore.

Some of these cross-cultural similarities concern the perception of discrete emo-

tions (a topic we will deal with more extensively shortly) or socially relevant state

information in people, whereas others concern the enactment of specific behaviors.

In terms of emotion states, Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, and Scott (2010) demonstrated

that negative emotion states, such as fear and anger, have specific vocal qualities

that are decoded similarly by people from different cultures.

Regarding socially relevant information, it appears that both people from indus-

trialized Western cultures and those from a preliterate African tribe recognize the

nonverbal expression of pride (Tracy & Robins, 2008). The combination of nonver-

bal cues that signal pride includes a head tilted backward slightly, postural expansion,

a low-intensity smile with the mouth, and arms akimbo with hands on the hips.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1988) suggests we might find entire sequences of behavior

manifesting cross-cultural similarities: for example, coyness, flirting, embarrass-

ment, open-handed greetings, and a lowered posture for communicating submission.

In fact, Schiefenhövel (1997) believes his own work and that of Eibl-Eibesfeldt have

“clearly proven the existence of universal facial, proxemic, and to a lesser extent,

gestural behaviors”(p. 65). Although others may not share the unequivocality of

Schiefenhövel’s claim, he reminds us of the extensive body of research ethologists

have accumulated around the globe that speaks to our common behavioral heritage.

At the same time, though, it is important to recognize that much research remains

to be done. For example, there have been claims that, in the area of seeking a mate,

a common “courtship dance”among humans and nonhumans exists, and that

cross-cultural similarities can be observed in the nonverbal behaviors used by

humans when flirting with members of the other sex (Birdwhistell, 1970;

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971). Although it seems that females use specific nonverbal beha-

viors to start the courtship process with males (looking at a male or standing close

to him), there is a limited cross-cultural understanding of the specific courtship cues

that are used successfully by females to attract males or of the nonverbal behaviors

that males use to court females who have flirted with them (Moore, 2010).

Importantly, even if cross-cultural similarities are found, we should not over-

look how cultural factors might lead to differences in the expression of that non-

verbal behavior. Two examples concern the circumstances that elicit the nonverbal

behavior, and the cultural norms and rules that govern how that nonverbal behav-

ior is managed around others. Next, we detail two behaviors with widespread doc-

umentation in a variety of cultures—findings that urge us to look for the possibility

of phylogenetic origins: (1) the eyebrow flash and (2) facial expressions of emotion.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1972) has identified what he calls the eyebrow flash. He has

observed this rapid raising of the eyebrows—maintained for about one-sixth of a

second before lowering—among Europeans, Balinese, Papuans, Samoans, South

American Indians, Bushmen, and others (see Figure 2-15). Although the eyebrow

flash often can be seen in friendly greeting behavior, it has also been seen when

people are giving approval or agreeing, seeking confirmation, flirting, thanking,

and when beginning and/or emphasizing a statement. The common denominator

seems to be a “yes”to social contact, requesting or approving such contact. Smiles

and nods sometimes accompany this gesture. The Japanese, however, are reported

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 53

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

to suppress it as an indecent behavior. However, other instances of reported eye-

brow raising seem to indicate disapproval, indignation, or admonishment. These

“no”eyebrow signals are often accompanied by a stare and/or head lift with lower-

ing of the eyelids signaling a cutting off of contact. Because Eibl-Eibesfeldt observed

eyebrow lifting in some Old World monkeys, he began speculating on the possible

evolutionary development. He reasoned that in both the “yes”and “no”displays, a

similar purpose was being served: calling attention to someone or letting someone

know for sure that he or she was being looked at. When we display the expression

of surprise, for instance, we raise our eyebrows and call attention to the object of

our surprise. It may be a friendly surprise or an annoyed surprise. The evolutionary

chain hypothesized by Eibl-Eibesfeldt is presented in Figure 2-16.

FIGURE 2-15

Eyebrow flash during friendly greetings filmed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt.

Source: Filmed by I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt from I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Ethology: The Biology of Behavior, 2nd ed., New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, 1975.

54 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence supporting the universality of facial

expressions is found in the work of Ekman and his colleagues (Fridlund, Ekman,

& Oster, 1987). Photos of 30 faces expressing happiness, fear, surprise, sadness,

anger, and disgust/contempt were presented to people in five diverse, literate

cultures. Faces were selected on the basis of meeting specific criteria for facial

musculature associated with such expressions. There was generally high agree-

ment among the respondents regarding which faces fit which emotions. Other

studies have found results supporting the accuracy of decoding posed facial

expressions of emotion. These studies tested people from 21 different countries

ranging from Kirghizistan to Malaysia and from Ethiopia to Estonia (Boucher &

Carlson, 1980; Ekman, 1972, 1998; Izard, 1971; Niit & Valsiner, 1977; Shimoda,

Argyle, & Ricci-Bitti, 1978).

Because these people were exposed to the mass media and travelers, we

might argue that they learned to recognize aspects of faces in other cultures from

these sources. However, Ekman and Friesen’s (1971) research with the South Fore

in Papua New Guinea and Heider’s (1974) work with the Dani in western New

Guinea show that these isolated, preliterate peoples—who were not exposed to the

mass media and travelers—decoded the posed expressions comparably to the peo-

ple from literate Eastern and Western cultures. In Ekman’s work with the South

Fore, stories were told to the subjects who were then asked to select one of three

facial photos that reflected the emotion of the story. Distinguishing fear from sur-

prise was the most difficult discrimination to make. Perhaps, as Ekman says, fearful

events in this culture are often surprising, too. Interestingly, when Ekman obtained

FIGURE 2-16

Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s hypothesized evolution of eyebrow movements.

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 55

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

photos of expressions made by these New Guineans and asked Americans to judge

them, the Americans accurately decoded all the expressions with high levels

of accuracy, with the exception of fear, which was often judged as surprise and

vice versa.

Physiological reactions associated with facial expressions have also been estab-

lished. Ekman, Levenson, and Friesen (1983) found that greater heart rate accelera-

tion and increased skin conductance occurred when people in the United States

made negative facial expressions displaying fear, disgust, and anger. Levenson,

Ekman, Heider, and Friesen (1992) found the same physiological reactions in the

Minangkabau of Sumatra.

Although Ekman’s program of research is perhaps the most complete, other

studies of other cultures support his findings. There does seem to be a universal

association between particular facial muscular patterns and discrete emotions. Note

that this is only a specific element of universality and does not suggest all aspects of

facial affect displays are universal, as Ekman and Friesen (1969) testify,

[W]e believe that, while the facial muscles which move when a particular affect is

aroused are the same across cultures, the evoking stimuli, the linked effects, the

display rules and the behavioral consequences all can vary enormously from one

culture to another.

Do these cultural display rules follow a pattern too? Matsumoto (1991) believes

two important dimensions of culture will help us predict the display rules for facial

expressions in any given culture:

1. Power distance, or the extent to which a culture maintains hierarchical, status,

and/or power differences among its members

2. Individualism–collectivism, or the degree to which a culture encourages indi-

vidual needs, wishes, desires, and values versus group and collective ones

Matsumoto hypothesizes that members of power-distance cultures will display

more emotions in public that preserve status differences. Cultures that stress

individualism, according to this theory, will manifest greater differences in public

emotional displays between ingroups and outgroups than in collective cultures.

Although the evidence seems to point toward universal recognition of certain

emotions from facial expressions, it is important to note that the only facial expres-

sion that received close to or above 90 percent accuracy by those tested in Japan,

Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the United States was happiness (Ekman, 1973,

1994). The smile, surely the most salient feature of the happy expressions, may

indeed have nearly universal meaning. But even here, we should exercise caution

because studies like those conducted by Ekman ask people to judge “pure”expres-

sions and they are often out of context. The social and emotional context of a

smile, and the exact combination of facial muscles used, can add many new and

even contradictory meanings, as we will discuss in Chapter 9. The claim of univer-

sality is not, therefore, that all smiles will always be interpreted as happy but that

the prototypical happy expression, involving movements of certain facial muscles,

will have a common meaning across most cultures.

The possibility of great variation in the meanings attributed to facial expres-

sions is made even clearer when we examine the judgments made of other facial

56 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

expressions of emotion (fear, surprise, anger, disgust/contempt, and sadness). For

these expressions, even the prototypical ones, the accuracy rate across the cultures

Ekman studied is noticeably less than it was for happiness. Perhaps, for these emo-

tional expressions, the biological determinants are weaker or have been overridden

more by cultural norms. Furthermore, Russell (1994) demonstrated that recogni-

tion scores for people from non-Western cultures are significantly lower than

Western respondents for expressions of fear, disgust, and anger. He also notes

the many problems associated with assessing universality in emotion recognition and

cautions that we should not overlook the degree to which cultures do not agree.

As we see in later chapters, there is also evidence that cultures can differ widely

in the overall frequency with which specific gestures or expressions are used, as

well as in the meanings attributed to those cues. So even though some facial dis-

plays of emotion may have a neurologically hardwired component to them, they

are also modified by local norms, values, and customs. As a result, these emotional

displays can be accurately recognized around the world; although some cultures

show more accuracy than others, all cultures are most accurate when judging

expressions made by people from their own culture (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).

Thus, again, the debate over universality versus cultural specificity cannot

be viewed as either/or any more than the nature-versus-nurture debate can be. To

illustrate, two cultures might engage in different amounts of interpersonal touch,

but the meanings attributed to various kinds of touches—sexual, friendly, domi-

nant, aggressive, and so forth—may be the same in both. Thus, we would see cul-

tural specificity in terms of usage but universality in terms of meaning. Or different

cultures might use the very same hand gesture with the same frequency but may

use it to convey very different messages. In this case there would be universality of

usage but cultural specificity on meaning.

We have ended this chapter by introducing the idea of differences among cul-

tures in emotional displays and recognition. In Chapter 3, we will expand on the

“difference”concept to examine differences among individuals in the ability to

send and understand nonverbal cues.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we examined five different ways

researchers accumulate data relevant to questions

of genetic and learned behavior. If we had data

from each area for a particular behavior, the

evidence would be strong. Instead, we have frag-

ments and tantalizing possibilities. The evidence

that facial expressions of emotion have an inher-

ited component is, to date, the strongest data we

have on any nonverbal behavior. Facial expres-

sions of emotion seem to manifest themselves in

children deprived of sight and hearing, in infants,

in nonhuman primates, and in literate and pre-

literate cultures around the world. A genetic

component passed on to members of the human

species seems probable for this behavior. The

innate capacity to perceive various kinds of beha-

viors and imitate them also has important impli-

cations for nonverbal study. And even though

little detailed and systematic evidence is available,

the possibility that entire sequences of behavior

may have a link to inheritance is most intriguing.

We take the point of view that neither nature

nor nurture is sufficient to explain the origin of

many nonverbal behaviors. In many instances,

we inherit a neurological program that gives

us the capacity to perform a particular act or

sequence of acts; the fact that a particular behav-

ior occurs at all may be genetically based. Our

CHAPTER 2THE ROOTS OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR 57

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

environment and cultural training, however, may

be responsible for when the behavior appears, the

frequency of its appearance, and the display rules

accompanying it.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. What do you think it means to say that non-

verbal behavior is universal? State evidence

supporting and not supporting such a claim.

What exceptions can you think of?

2. Darwin thought there were many similarities

between the nonverbal expressions of humans

and those of lower animals. Discuss commu-

nication in the animal world. Do you think

animals send the same messages via nonverbal

behavior that we do?

3. Why, in your opinion, do infants imitate

adults’facial movements? Do you think

they know what different expressions mean?

Why do babies have such expressive faces

and voices?

4. The eyebrow flash is seen in cultures around

the world. Reflect on your own use of this

gesture. Do you use it? If so, when do you

use it and with what meanings?

58 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND

SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS

[CHAPTER3]

As you look around, you will readily note that some people seem more socially

wise than others. Some people can “get along with anybody”; some we call savvy,

tactful, shrewd, or poised. In contrast, some people seem insensitive, awkward,

obtuse, or just tuned out. All of these qualities fit into the concept of social compe-

tence. Social competence is not easy to define, but it has long interested researchers,

and social intelligence is considered a basic intellectual capacity distinct from other

cognitive abilities (Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979; Sternberg,

1984). Emotional intelligence is a related concept involving the ability to judge

emotional messages, to regulate our own emotions, and to use emotions wisely

to guide thought and action (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002; Salovey &

Mayer, 1989). Even though it may seem that social and emotional intelligence are

distinct—one cognitive, the other emotional—our success in daily living may

depend on our ability to tie our emotions to our thinking (Damasio, 1994).

We definitely know that skill in nonverbal communication is part of social com-

petence. Some people are comparatively more alert to nonverbal cues and better able

to identify what these cues mean; some people are also more proficient at expressing

their feelings and attitudes nonverbally. Some people try, using nonverbal as well as

verbal cues, to project an image of themselves—for example, they want to be seen as

cool, reckless, intellectual, sincere, or competent—but they just cannot pull it off

convincingly; their performances seem fake or flawed. Others do an excellent job of

projecting exactly the image they desire. The social competence that comprises such

skill is essential in our daily life, both personal and professional. If we accept the

59

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

premise that skill in nonverbal communication is important, and that some people are

more effective at such communication than others, we may legitimately ask how they

became effective, and whether these abilities can be developed in other people.

In this chapter, we focus on the receiving and sending of nonverbal messages,

using the terms skill,ability, and accuracy more or less interchangeably. Although

nonverbal communication skills are often talked about with reference to judging

and expressing emotions, people actually judge and express many other kinds of

nonverbal messages, states, and traits as well. We make such inferences and expres-

sions so often in daily life that we are barely aware of doing it.

A person needs to notice characteristics of others in order to interpret them

correctly. These can include aspects of physical appearance, such as clothing and

hairstyle, as well as nonverbal behaviors. Sometimes the noticing by itself is the

important thing, independent of whatever interpretations might be made (Hall,

Murphy, & Schmid Mast, 2006; Horgan, Schmid Mast, Hall, & Carter, 2004).

For example, we might notice and remember that our friend likes dangly earrings,

that she often wears blue, or that she might be a bit too plump for the sweater you

are thinking of buying her. Sometimes we notice something and make an interpre-

tation right away (“She is jumping up and down at the news—she must be really

excited”or “Whoops, that ring tells me he’s married”). Other times, we may notice

something but not grasp its meaning until later, as in “Oh, you didn’t get your

promotion. No wonder you were so quiet at dinner.”

Social communication skill does not rest only on nonverbal cues, however.

People also need to grasp verbal meanings—literal, metaphoric, and shades of

innuendo—and to integrate verbal and nonverbal cues; sarcasm and joking, for

example, are expressed through combinations of verbal and nonverbal cues. The

ability to connect a name with a face is yet another skill required in daily life, as

is the ability to know whether you have heard a certain voice (see Chapter 11) or

seen a certain face before (Leeland, 2008).

People also need to understand social contexts and roles: what is and is not

expected in a given social situation; how people in particular roles—for example,

professors and students—are expected to behave; and what consequences might

ensue from violating others’expectations (Bernieri, 2001). Kurt Danziger (1976)

has argued that social interaction is impossible without a subtle and unspoken—in

other words, nonverbal—negotiation of the respective roles to be played by the

two parties in an interaction. Usually one person lays claim to a particular role or

definition of the relationship, and the other has to go along or else counter with a dif-

ferent role definition. Until the two people tacitly agree on a common understanding,

they cannot successfully interact, because they cannot effectively enact the roles of

friend–friend, teacher–student, salesperson–customer, doctor–patient, interrogator–

suspect, or mother–child. People generally know how to play these roles very well,

and they do so without having to think about it consciously; furthermore, people

are sensitive to whether roles are being enacted appropriately by others. This subtle

negotiation over roles usually goes unnoticed until one person acts “out of role”or

inappropriately to the other’s unspoken expectations. Then people are likely to become

aware that the interaction has become problematic, although they still may not know

why. Clearly, the ability to read and send the subtle cues required for role negotiation,

and to know when roles are being fulfilled appropriately, is an important social skill.

60 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Although much research has been done on nonverbal abilities, many questions

remain unanswered. These include the origins of nonverbal abilities; the role that

motivation, and trying hard, plays in accurate judgment and expression; whether

skill in receiving and sending are part of one larger skill or are separate skills; and,

within the receiving and sending modalities, whether there are many distinct sub-

skills—such as skill in judging emotion, skill in judging personality, and skill in judg-

ing deception—or whether all these can be subsumed under the general concept of

accuracy. There are also many unresolved methodological issues in this domain

(Hall, Bernieri, & Carney, 2005), some of which we will touch upon in this chapter.

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF NONVERBAL SKILLS

Most of our ability to send and receive nonverbal signals is derived from

“on-the-job training,”the job being the process of daily living. In short, we learn

our nonverbal skills, not always consciously, by imitating and modeling others

and by adapting our responses to the coaching, feedback, and advice of others.

This process starts in infancy with babies’mimicry of adult facial expressions.

Even within the first few days of life, infants can imitate mouth opening and

tongue protrusion; within the first few months, imitation extends to lip protrusion,

finger movements, brow movements, and even different emotional expressions on

the face (see Chapter 2). By 9 months, a mother’s facial expressions are not only

reciprocated by her baby but also have a clear influence on the baby’s affect and play

behavior (Field, 1982; Field, Woodson, Greenberg, & Cohen, 1982; Meltzoff &

Moore, 1983a, 1983b; Termine & Izard, 1988). Experts believe that an innate

repertoire of facial expressions, innate imitative ability, and selective reinforce-

ment by caretakers combine to produce in a child an understanding of the

socially agreed-on meanings of different nonverbal cues, and that these processes

enable people to label emotions in themselves and others (Lewis & Rosenblum,

1978). In Chapters 7 and 9, we discuss nonverbal mimicry further.

That nonverbal and other social skills are strongly rooted in learning seems

apparent enough and provides insight into why individuals differ so much in these

skills. Among many animals, social interaction is also essential to developing appro-

priate social behavior later in life. Harlow’s famous studies of rhesus macaque mon-

keys showed that monkeys raised in complete isolation for 6 months and then tested

at 2 to 3.5 years of age “displayed aggression even to 1-year-old infants, as no self-

respecting socially raised rhesus would”(Harlow & Mears, 1978, p. 272). Even

specific communication skills in monkeys have been linked to social experience

early in life. Miller, Caul, and Mirsky (1967) found that rhesus monkeys reared in

isolation were deficient in facial expression and judgment ability. In an experiment,

two monkeys could each avoid an electric shock if one could communicate to the

other through facial cues that the shock was imminent (indicated to the expressor

monkey by a colored light) so that the other monkey could press a bar in time to

cancel the shock for both of them. Monkeys reared in isolation were incapable of

producing the necessary expressions and, when put in the role of receiver monkey,

proved deficient at reading the fearful facial expressions of the other monkey.

Feedback from others as we grow up does not have to mention our behavior

explicitly; it can be a response to our behavior. Feedback, then, may be another

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 61

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

person saying, “Well, you don’t look happy,”or even without making such a state-

ment, treating you like you are an unhappy person. Through feedback we increase

our awareness of ourselves and others. We not only learn what behaviors to enact

but also how they are performed, with whom, when, where, and with what conse-

quences. You can practice nonverbal sending and receiving frequently, but without

regular, accurate feedback, you may not improve your ability. Feedback in the

form of telling participants when their nonverbal judgments are right or wrong is

one of the more successful methods of improving nonverbal abilities (Ambady,

Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000).

Overall, there do appear to be positive effects of training. Studies have incorpo-

rated a variety of approaches, including teaching the meanings of cues and provid-

ing discussion, practice, and feedback as mentioned earlier. Though the evidence is

positive, not much is known about how long such improvements last or about how

they impact social functioning (Beck & Feldman, 1989; Costanzo, 1992; Davitz,

1964; Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Elfenbein, 2006; Grinspan, Hemphill, & Nowicki,

2003). Nevertheless, the potential impact of training should not be overlooked.

For example, men at high risk for physically abusing their children could benefit

from training in emotion recognition, as they appear to have deficits in this area

(Asla, dePaúl, & Pérez-Albéniz, 2011), and physicians could benefit from training

THE TRUTH ABOUT DECEPTION

“Hey, I just lied to you!”How many times have you heard that right after someone has just lied to your

face? If we ever learn about another’s deceit, it is likely well after the fact. Not knowing that we are being

lied to when we are being lied to, we have little opportunity to detect associations between the nonverbal

cues of the liar and the lie itself.

Moreover, even when we suspect deception, the liar is not likely to admit that we have caught him or

her in a lie, depriving us of the feedback that we need to hone our deception-detecting skills. How often

have you heard the following? “You’re right, I am lying to you. What gave me away?”For these reasons,

the learning environment for decoders is rather impoverished when deception is involved. Skill at decoding

deception is consequently not all that good.

We might not be aware that our skill at detecting deception is not all that good for the same reasons we

are not good at distinguishing between a lie and the truth. In general, we learn that another person has lied

to us after the fact. We are thus required to search our memory banks for clues about what the liar did or

did not do when he or she was deceiving us. Such recollections could be misleading because what sticks out

in our minds will likely be salient nonverbal cues that do not signal deception per se (e.g., “I remember she

got angry when I accused her of pilfering money from the company’s petty cash fund”). We might also

remember seeing cues that were not actually present during the lie because these cues fit with the faulty ste-

reotypic information we have about the nonverbal behavior of liars (e.g., “I recall his eyes became shifty

when I confronted him about flirting with our neighbor”). Lastly, when we suspect deception, we might

ignore the feedback from the other person—“I’m not lying about this!”—that would lead us to understand

that the person is actually telling the truth to us. Ironically, we cannot be good lie detectors if we do not

understand the nonverbal behaviors associated with telling the truth.

The truth about deception is that, in general, we do not fully appreciate the fact that we are not all that

good at detecting it.

62 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

in effective nonverbal communication strategies for dealing with their patients

(Crane & Crane, 2010).

Individuals from one culture have also been successfully trained to understand

and enact characteristic nonverbal behaviors of people from a different culture

or subculture (Collett, 1971). In Elfenbein’s (2006) training study, participants

profited the most when learning to judge emotional expressions from a culture

dissimilar to their own, perhaps due to the relative novelty of the expressions.

Some kinds of everyday experience may also serve as a form of training:

1. Parents, especially mothers, of toddler-age children were shown to be more

accurate in judging nonverbal cues on a standard test than were similar

married people without children (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Though this study

does not prove cause and effect, it fits with other studies that show positive

correlations between experiences requiring communication in the nonverbal

medium and performance on tests of decoding nonverbal cues.

2. One study showed an intriguing connection with training in a different

modality: Training in keyboard music produced improvements in the

ability to decode the meanings of vocal expressions of emotion (Thompson,

Schellenberg, & Husain, 2004).

3. Furthermore, travel outside one’s own country (Swenson & Casmir, 1998) and

dance or athletic experience (Pitterman & Nowicki, 2004) are associated with

greater ability to decode nonverbal cues.

These studies suggest that a person’s nonverbal skills benefit from more varied

experience in decoding the feelings and reactions of people through nonverbal

cues, as would happen when communicating with people who do not speak

your language, and from reading the cues of teammates and competitors on the

playing field or from spending many hours in the expressive medium of music or

dance.

There have also been efforts to train people’s abilities in sending—not just

decoding—nonverbal cues, especially using the social-skills model developed by

Argyle (1988). According to this model, socially skilled behavior is analogous to

skilled motor behavior, such as driving a car. In both kinds of skills, a person

makes moves, observes their effect including others’reactions to them (i.e., gets

feedback from others about the effect of his or her moves), and takes corrective

action, all with the purpose of obtaining a goal. The different elements of social

behavior are seen as hierarchical. The finer, lower-level elements are automatic

and habitual; the higher levels are more strategic in nature, and therefore, are

under more direct cognitive control. This kind of training involves more active

role-playing and practice than the research described previously. Social-skills train-

ing based on this model has been used to train people of low social competence

in the effective use of nonverbal cues to make friends; it is also aimed at helping

distressed married couples, psychiatric patients, children with learning disabilities,

and professionals who need social skills for their occupations (Argyle, Trower, &

Bryant, 1974; Hargie, 2006).

A major category of behavior emphasized in social-skills training is reinforce-

ment, which involves the provision of encouragement and reward to others in

the course of an interaction. Reinforcers can be verbal and nonverbal. Verbal

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 63

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

reinforcers include acknowledgment, agreement, and praise. Nonverbal reinforcers

include the positive use of smiles, head nods, looking at the other, touching, body

proximity, certain gestures (e.g., thumbs-up), and an encouraging voice quality.

IS IT GOOD TO HAVE MORE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE

OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION?

Students frequently ask whether attempts to learn about and develop skills in non-

verbal communication might have negative consequences. They wonder whether

we will know too much about others for our own good, and whether those who

have this information might use it to manipulate others for self-serving ends. Or

they worry that being expert in reading nonverbal cues will make a person

unhappy or unpopular, because that person is able to see through others’lies and

insincerity. Though all of these could happen in specific circumstances, there is,

thus far, little overall evidence of these negative consequences. In general, we

believe that increasing people’s knowledge of nonverbal cues is a good thing,

and that both individuals and society benefit when everyone’scommunication

skills are better.

Greater knowledge of cues and more developed skills may also make people

less vulnerable to manipulation. But even tactics that work do not work all the

time. A good analogy can be drawn from the study of verbal persuasion. People

have been studying the art of persuasion for over 2,000 years, yet it does not

appear that anyone has become so sophisticated that he or she invariably succeeds

in persuading anyone in any situation. Furthermore, it is the nature of human

adaptation to change behavior when it becomes unproductive. Whenever people

who know more about nonverbal behavior are suspected of using it against others,

we soon see attempts to expose or counteract the attempted influence. It also goes

without saying that each person has the ethical responsibility not to use knowledge

to harm others.

Interestingly, people seem to be less comfortable with the idea of skilled, con-

scious use of nonverbal cues than with the idea of skilled verbal persuasion. People

seem to want to believe that nonverbal communication is always a spontaneous,

and therefore sincere, reflection of feelings or intentions. As long as people believe

all nonverbal cues are spontaneous expressions of feeling, they will be less on

guard against nonverbal manipulation and, therefore, more vulnerable to it. But

nonverbal communication is much more than a spontaneous readout of feelings

(see Chapter 9). People use nonverbal cues for self-presentation and for a variety

of strategic and deliberate, sometimes even dishonest, purposes. A trial lawyer

must act convinced of her client’s dubious innocence. A psychotherapist needs to

appear sincerely interested and accepting of a client’s plight, whatever it might be.

A manager has to, at times, be able to produce a smile and a cheerful greeting for

his subordinates even when his own mood is less than sunny. And a parent may

use nonverbal communication constantly and deliberately to reinforce and direct a

child’s behavior in socially acceptable ways. Each of us has a multitude of roles to

play in life, and a skilled understanding of the nonverbal cues relevant to each role

is important for the smooth functioning of society and can serve to keep us in good

standing with others.

64 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

MEASURING THE ACCURACY OF DECODING

AND ENCODING NONVERBAL CUES

Interest in measuring sending (encoding) and receiving (decoding) accuracy goes

back to the early decades of the 20th century. Over the years, many researchers

have measured accuracy in order to answer a variety of scientific questions. Some-

times the purpose has been to study the encoding and decoding process itself: Can

emotions be recognized from nonverbal cues? What cues do people rely on most

when making their judgments? Sometimes the goal is to compare accuracy in dif-

ferent communication channels or among different emotions: Is it easier to decode

the face than the voice? Which are the hardest messages to send via nonverbal

cues? And sometimes the purpose is to compare the accuracy of individuals and

groups. It is this last line of research that we emphasize in this chapter. Other

chapters in this book take up some of the other questions listed earlier.

Most research on nonverbal communication skill has focused on the sending

and receiving of nonverbal cues reflective of emotions. However, there is much

latitude, both theoretically and in practice, in how nonverbal skill is defined and

measured (Hall & Bernieri, 2001). The following list shows some of the variety

and richness of the information that is sent and received in daily life.

•Interpersonal orientation: “That person was trying to dominate me,”or

“He didn’t seem very threatening.”

•Attitudes: “I really like you,”or “I could tell that you didn’t like that movie.”

•Intentions or needs: “She wants to leave,”or “She wants attention.”

•Physical states: “I’m in pain,”or “You look really tired.”

•Personality: “She was the most extraverted person I’ve ever met,”or “He is

so neurotic.”

•Personal characteristics: “You don’t look a day over 30,”or “I bet he’s gay.”

•Intelligence: “I have to seem really smart to get this job,”or “He’s not as

dumb as he looks.”

•Deception and insincerity: “I like this present, I really do,”or “I thought she

was a big phony.”

•Appearance and behavior: “Remember Jenny? She’s the one who smiles a lot,”

or “She’s worn the same thing three days in a row!”

The following examples will give you a taste of actual research. Bernieri, Gillis,

Davis, and Grahe (1996) have studied rapport, which is defined as how much pos-

itivity, attentiveness, and coordination are experienced by people toward each

other when they interact (Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). Bernieri measured

observers’accuracy in rating the degree of rapport felt by opposite-sex dyads inter-

acting on a videotape by comparing these ratings to the degree of rapport reported

by the people on the tape. Observers’accuracy was better than the guessing level

but was impeded by their reliance on some cues that were not, in fact, indicators

of actual rapport. For example, they thought more smiling was a sign of rapport,

when in fact it was not.

On the opposite side of rapport, adults and children may pick up on nonverbal

cues linked to interracial disharmony. Using 20-second clips of white undergradu-

ates speaking with black or white experimenters, Richeson and Shelton (2005)

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 65

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

found that the speaker’s prejudice against blacks was detectable by other under-

graduates who rated how positively toned the speaker’s behavior was. Accuracy in

predicting prejudice was especially high when the rater was black and the video

clip showed a white speaking with a black experimenter. In other words, the black

student raters seemed to be especially able to discern how the more prejudiced

whites spoke to blacks. More disturbingly, children’s racial attitudes might be

informed by observing adults’nonverbal cues of uneasiness in mixed-racial interac-

tions (Castelli, De Dea, & Nesdale, 2008).

A novel kind of accuracy was studied by Carter and Hall (2008), who mea-

sured how well people could notice covariations between characteristics of people

and how they behaved in a group discussion. For example, when observing a

group of people talking about living on campus versus living off campus, did the

observer notice that those who lived on campus talked more than those who did

not? Women’s accuracy on this test was higher than men’s, and accuracy was

higher for observers who had more extraverted and less neurotic personalities.

Other kinds of interpersonal accuracy include the ability to recognize what

social groups people belong to as well as their sexual orientation. Kraus and

Keltner (2009) noted that observers could distinguish between individuals of upper

and lower socioeconomic status (SES), and that a person’s SES might be signaled

by his or her nonverbal cues of disengagement (e.g., doodling, shown more by

upper SES individuals) and engagement (e.g., head nodding, shown more by lower

SES individuals) during interactions. Ambady, Hallahan, and Conner (1999) measured

the accuracy with which people could identifythesexualorientation(gay/lesbianvs.

heterosexual) of people shown speaking for only a few seconds. Accuracy was higher

than would be expected by chance, and the less information provided on which to

base a judgment, the more accurate gay and lesbian observers were relative to hetero-

sexual observers. Rule and Ambady (2008b) further demonstrated that college

students had an accuracy rate higher than guessing when shown gay and straight

men’sfacesforonlya20thofasecond.

As one final example, accuracy in judging personality traits can be measured

not only from how people behave but also from their social footprint. This foot-

print can include their tastes in music and recreation, their self-representation on

personal Web sites, their clothing choices, and the manner in which they decorate

and maintain their living or working spaces. Accuracy in judging personality from

such footprint cues has been shown to be surprisingly good, as documented in stud-

ies of music tastes, dress, and living/working spaces, among others (Borkenau, P., &

Liebler, A. (1993a), 1995; Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002; Zweigenhaft,

2008). Social footprint information also seems to help us detect a disorder of person-

ality, narcissism. Observers appear to be aware of the flashy dress and neat appear-

ance of narcissists (Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008).

In typical studies of accuracy in judging nonverbal cues, stimuli include video-

tapes, photographs, or audio recordings of people. The stimuli might show all of

the information, as in a regular videotape, or the researcher might carve the non-

verbal cues up into channels, such as silent video, face only, and voice only.

For facial encoding, the people who serve as the stimuli are often asked to

express a series of emotions or attitudes with their faces, or to tell about an emo-

tional experience, while being videotaped. In the slide-viewing paradigm (Buck,

66 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Miller, & Caul, 1974), the researcher shows expressors (i.e., encoders) a series of

emotionally arousing slides categorized as scenic, sexual, unpleasant, or unusual.

Facial reactions to the slides can then be assessed. Such facial expressions are

much more spontaneous than in the previously described methods, because expres-

sors do not know they are being videotaped while watching the slides (or films, in

some studies; the issue of posed versus spontaneous behavior is discussed later in

this chapter and in Chapter 9).

For vocal encoding, senders may be asked to recite a standard sentence with

emotionally neutral content or to recite the alphabet while expressing different

emotional/attitudinal states. Or they might be asked to describe a past emotional

experience, and thereby reexperience the emotion they had felt at the time. If, for

example, the request is to “talk about a sad experience you have had,”the tone of

voice used by a sender would reflect how successfully he or she had conveyed his

or her sadness. If the researcher wants to be sure that verbal cues do not provide

the listener with clues as to what message is being conveyed, electronic filtering

methods can be applied to make the words unintelligible so that only nonverbal

qualities, such as loudness and pitch, remain (see Chapter 11).

The accuracy with which the expressors have nonverbally conveyed various

emotions or messages is often defined in terms of whether people who do not

know what the original emotions or messages were can accurately identify them.

Thus, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2003) had spouses deliberately send emotional mes-

sages to each other and then scored encoding accuracy by showing the videotapes

to a group of naive judges who guessed what emotion was being conveyed. The

proportion of judges whose guesses matched the original affective intention of the

spouses was used as the operational definition of encoding accuracy.

The methods described so far involve presenting a set of nonverbal stimuli to

perceivers. Such stimuli are often called thin slices because they are short excerpts

from the ongoing stream of behavior (Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000;

Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007; Lippa & Dietz,

2000). The thin slices used in research can range in length from a video of people

interacting for several minutes down to still facial expressions shown for less than

1 second (Matsumoto et al., 2000).

There are many advantages to having the stimuli standardized in a set that can

be reused with many different perceivers. This is the usual definition of a test.

However, sometimes a researcher wants to investigate nonverbal communication

between individuals who are communicating with each other; for example, they

want to measure the accuracy of communication between spouses (Noller, 1980)

or between subordinates and their bosses (Snodgrass, 1992). Live-interaction

studies like these are not standardized in the way that a test would be. Snodgrass

studied communication accuracy in dyads in the following manner: After a period

of interaction in assigned boss-employee roles, the dyad members made ratings of

their own feelings and feelings about the other person, and then both guessed

what the other person’s feelings were using the same rating scales. Communication

accuracy was defined as the correlation between these two sets of ratings, with

accurate communication occurring when one person’s pattern of guesses matched

the pattern of the other person’s self-ratings. Using this method, it is a challenge to

separate the skills of encoder (expressor) and decoder (receiver) because high

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 67

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

accuracy can result if an encoder sends very clear messages about what he or she

thinks and feels, or if the decoder is highly sensitive to the cues conveyed by the

encoder, or both. However, by showing videotapes of the interactions to a new

group of naive judges, it is possible to disentangle these different sources of accu-

racy (Hall, Rosip, Smith LeBeau, Horgan, & Carter, 2006; Snodgrass, Hecht, &

Ploutz-Snyder, 1998).

A constant problem in this area of research centers on the question of criteria.

It is easy to ask decoders to judge what the sender is feeling or communicating, but

how do you know whether the decoders are right? If the communication is posed,

the criterion can be simply whatever encoders were asked to pose. If the sender

was asked to look happy, a decoder would get a correct answer for saying the per-

son looked happy. Using this system, a decoder could make an error through no

fault of his or her own if the encoder did a poor job of showing the intended emo-

tion. Other criteria have been used, but none is perfect. With the slide-viewing

technique, a decoder’s answer is scored as correct if he or she correctly identifies

which slide the encoder was viewing when the encoder’s face was recorded. This

method assumes that encoders’faces show an appropriate response, but

sometimes they do not. Sometimes experts decide on what emotion is being

expressed in a stimulus. Sometimes consensus is used, so a correct answer is

based on what the majority of decoders say. (See Chapter 9 for further discussion

of judgment methods.)

STANDARDIZED TESTS OF DECODING ABILITY

Robert Rosenthal and his associates developed a multichannel test of nonverbal

decoding ability known as the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity or PONS test. The

PONS test is a 45-minute video that contains 220 auditory and visual segments to

which viewers are asked to respond. Each segment is a 2-second excerpt from a scene

portrayed by a white American woman. Five scenes portray a positive-dominant

affect or attitude (e.g., “admiring a baby”); five scenes portray positive-submissive

behavior (e.g., “expressing gratitude”); five scenes portray negative-dominant

behavior (e.g., “criticizing someone for being late”); and five scenes portray

negative-submissive behavior (e.g., “asking forgiveness”). Each scene is presented to

viewers in 11 different cue channels, representing the single or combined channels of

face, body, and two different kinds of content-masked speech (see Chapter 11 for

the description of the methods used to accomplish this). A decoder obtains a score

for particular channels and combinations of channels in addition to a total score.

The test has been administered widely to people of different ages, occupations,

and nationalities.

Figure 3-1 shows three still photos taken from the PONS test. Each item has

two choices: for example, (a) returning faulty item to a store versus (b) ordering

food in a restaurant or (a) talking about one’s divorce versus (b) expressing motherly

love. Thus, the PONS test measures the ability to recognize affective or attitudinal

states in a situational context.

In contrast, the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (DANVA;

Nowicki & Duke, 1994) is based on recognition of pure emotions—happiness,

sadness, fear, and anger—shown out of context; thus, it taps into a more unitary

68 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

kind of knowledge. The DANVA has several versions, including tests of facial,

vocal, and postural expressions of adult and child expressors. The facial and

postural expressions were generated by asking encoders to pose the different emo-

tions while a photograph was taken, and the vocal cues were generated by asking

encoders to say an ambiguous sentence while conveying the four different emotions.

The DANVA has been used extensively with children and adults.

A recent addition to these standardized tests is the Japanese and Caucasian

Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART; Matsumoto et al., 2000). This test

shows still photos of facial expressions of white American and Japanese adults

at extremely short exposures—mere fractions of a second. These photos are sand-

wiched between two neutral expressions of each expressor so that the viewer sees

the sequence of neutral-emotion-neutral in rapid succession. The JACBART inves-

tigates sensitivity to micromomentary expressions,whichwediscussfurtherin

Chapter 9.

In contrast to these tests, in which encoders act out different scenes or emo-

tions, the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT) emphasizes more spontaneous behav-

ior. Its developers reasoned that in real life, the things we judge about others are

often actual events or relationships (Archer & Akert, 1977; Costanzo & Archer,

1989). For example, a man and woman are interacting with two children: Which

is their own child? Two women discuss a tennis game they have just played: Who

was the winner? A man tells his life story, then he tells it again quite differently:

Which story is true? Figure 3-2 shows some still frames from a preliminary version

of the test. In the final audiovisual version of the test, verbal as well as nonverbal

information is conveyed by the expressors, but the verbal information is ambiguous

enough so that the words alone do not give away the correct answers.

Each item in the IPT has an objectively correct answer; because the scenes

are more ecologically valid than items on most such tests, it is believed the IPT

FIGURE 3-1

Still photos from the PONS test.

Courtesy of Judith A. Hall

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 69

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

measures the subtle and complex skills that people use in everyday life. One final

method based on naturalistic stimuli is called the empathic accuracy paradigm.

Here, a person’s ability to “mind read”what another person is thinking and feeling

at particular moments in a conversation is measured by making use of a later

review of the videotape by both parties, during which each party explains their

a

b

FIGURE 3-2

How’s your interpersonal perception? In (a), are the two people a couple married 2 years or

strangers posing together? In (b), which woman is the mother of the children? In (c), is the

woman waking her husband from a nap, watching an arm wrestling match, or playing with

her baby daughter? Answers are given at the end of the chapter.

Dane Archer, Ph.D., Santa Cruz, 1980 Dane Archer, Ph.D., Santa Cruz, 1980

70 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

thoughts/feelings as they occurred. Accuracy is then calculated as how well one

person’s guesses about the other’s thoughts/feelings correspond to what the other

person said (Ickes, 2001, 2003; Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990).

PERSONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ACCURACY

OF DECODING NONVERBAL CUES

People can be extremely sensitive to nonverbal cues. In Chapter 1, we showed that

students react to very subtle positive and negative expectancy cues from their tea-

chers. Research shows that first impressions of personality, based on superficial

observation and no actual interaction, agree impressively among observers and

with the targets’own self-descriptions. Thus, people agree on others’sociability or

extraversion after the barest exposure to each other, and those ratings are more

accurate than would be expected by chance (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988;

Levesque & Kenny, 1993; Marcus & Lehman, 2002).

Similarly, observers’ratings of only a few seconds, or thin slices, of behavior

can be surprisingly accurate and predictive of other important variables (Ambady,

Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000). The predictive power of thin slices has been demon-

strated in a variety of domains, including judgments of teacher effectiveness, the

affective style of children and their families, personality traits and psychopathol-

ogy, rapport during medical examinations, and intelligence (Ambady & Rosenthal,

1993; Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007; Fowler, Lilienfeld, & Patrick, 2009; Murphy,

Hall, & Colvin, 2003; Oveis, Gruber, Keltner, Stamper, & Boyce, 2009;

Roter, Hall, Blanch-Hartigan, Larson, & Frankel, 2011). Interestingly, accurate

predictions can be made of consumers’personalities based on thin slices of their

c

FIGURE 3-2 (continued)

Dane Archer, Ph.D., Santa Cruz, 1980

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 71

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

avatars (Bélisle & Bodur, 2010). Regarding teacher effectiveness, people who

watch brief clips of silent video of teachers’classroom behavior agree remarkably

on the teachers’qualities, and their ratings predict performance evaluations by the

teachers’own students and principal (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). Clips a minute

long or shorter produce accuracy above chance levels for a variety of personality

traits and intelligence (Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007; Murphy, Hall, & Colvin,

2003). In the Carney et al. study, clips of 5 seconds were as good as much longer

clips for judging some characteristics (e.g., intelligence).

However, the accuracy with which thin slices are judged varies greatly from

study to study and depends both on the method used and the construct being

judged. Accuracy may be best when people do not think too much about the judg-

ment process (Ambady, 2011). Accuracy in distinguishing truth from lies is typi-

cally not much above the guessing level (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), whereas

accuracy in judging basic emotions, and also the status difference between two

people, is often very high (Biehl et al., 1997; Schmid Mast & Hall, 2004). Compar-

isons like this must be made with caution, however, because in developing their

tests, investigators have great latitude in determining how easy or difficult the

items are (by, for example, varying how much information is made available

to perceivers). In order to detect differences in test-takers’accuracy levels, test

developers often strive to make their tests neither too easy nor too difficult.

SELF-APPRAISALS AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF NONVERBAL CUES

Considering the time required to develop, validate, administer, and score nonverbal

tests, you might think it would be cheaper and easier just to ask people to appraise

their own skills. Unfortunately, this does not work. People high in sensitivity

to nonverbal cues are not necessarily those who appraise their own skills highly

(Riggio & Riggio, 2001). Though their accuracy in self-evaluation is above

the guessing level (Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009), it is not nearly high

enough for self-evaluations to be substituted for tested nonverbal decoding skill.

This fairly low self-awareness of skill is entirely consistent with the view of most

experts that people’s knowledge of nonverbal cues is tacit;thatis,peopleprocess

nonverbal cues largely unconsciously, without much awareness of which cues they

rely on. Indeed, the cues that people think they use when making nonverbal judg-

ments are often not the ones actually relevant to the judgments they are making

(Zuckerman, Koestner, & Driver, 1981).

However, it has been shown that people do have some explicit knowledge of

nonverbal communication—that is, knowledge they can articulate on a paper-and-

pencil test (Rosip & Hall, 2004), and that deficits in such knowledge may have

important implications for understanding people with subclinical autistic character-

istics (Ingersoll, 2011). The Test of Nonverbal Cue Knowledge (TONCK) (Rosip &

Hall, 2004) measures knowledge with 81 items marked true or false, and the results

are scored based on findings established through published research. These scores

significantly predict accuracy on the PONS and DANVA nonverbal decoding tests

(described earlier), but the correlations are not large enough to permit the TONCK

to be used as a substitute for measuring the actual decoding of cues. However, the

TONCK is a good addition to the instruments available for researchers.

72 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

GENDER

One of the best documented correlates of nonverbal sensitivity is gender. More often

than not, girls and women score higher than boys and men on tests of judging the

meanings of nonverbal cues (Hall, 1984; McClure, 2000). Women also score higher

than men on the TONCK, and they remember people’s appearance and nonverbal

cues better than men do (Hall, Murphy, & Schmid Mast, 2006; Horgan, Schmid

Mast, Hall, & Carter, 2004). The female advantage in decoding the meanings of

nonverbal cues is present from grade school on up. Although the difference is not

great—about 2 percentage points between average male and female PONS scores,

for example—it is extremely consistent. Females scored higher than males in 80 per-

cent of 133 different groups given the PONS test, including a variety of non-U.S.

samples (Hall, 1984; Rosenthal et al., 1979). Reviews of research using many other

decoding tests have confirmed that this gender difference exists across ages of parti-

cipants and regardless of whether the encoders are male or female and regardless of

which particular test is used (Hall, 1978). It also holds up, with rare exceptions,

from culture to culture (Dickey & Knower, 1941; Izard, 1971; Merten, 2005;

Rosenthal et al., 1979).

Although these and other studies indicate a superior ability among females to

judge nonverbal cues, there are limits and exceptions to a general female advantage.

Females are especially good at judging facial cues relative to other channels and

when emotion of some sort is being judged (Hall, 1978; Rosenthal & DePaulo,

1979). For the decoding of anger cues, there is some evidence that males may actu-

ally have an advantage when the person being judged is male (Rotter & Rotter,

1988; Wagner, MacDonald, & Manstead, 1986). Researchers have shown that

women do not have an advantage at judging whether another person is lying

(Aamodt & Custer, 2006), or when judging status and dominance (Schmid Mast &

Hall, 2004). And, women’s advantage is less consistent when the task is Ickes’

empathic accuracy paradigm described earlier, involving the ability to guess another

person’s thoughts and feelings at particular moments in a conversation (Ickes, Gesn,

& Graham, 2000). Tasks that possibly show a weaker female advantage are those in

which facial expression plays a less significant role. Indeed, in the empathic accuracy

paradigm, the most important cues appear to be verbal rather than facial (Gesn &

Ickes, 1999; Hall & Schmid Mast, 2007).

Given how widespread the evidence for females’superiority on nonverbal judg-

ment tasks is, it is no surprise that interpersonal sensitivity is part of the common

stereotype about women (Briton & Hall, 1995). We think it is likely that females’

greater skill as interpersonal decoders has been recognized throughout history and

contributes to the layperson’s notion of “female intuition.”Gender differences in

nonverbal communication skill are discussed further in Chapter 12.

AGE

Age also has been studied in relation to decoding skill. Provocative research indi-

cates that infants only a few months old have some ability to discriminate among

facial and vocal expressions of emotion (Haviland & Lelwica, 1987; Walker-

Andrews, 1997; Walker-Andrews & Lennon, 1991). Of course, it is difficult to

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 73

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

assess how much infants understand the cues’meanings; discrimination per se does

not demonstrate this kind of understanding. But research did find that 7-month-

olds showed increased attention to faces that matched auditory tones on emotional

quality; for example, they looked more at a joyful face than a sad face when the

associated vocal tones were ascending, fast oscillating, high, and pulsing (Phillips,

Wagner, Fells, & Lynch, 1990). Thus by this age, infants at least know what facial

cues go with what vocal cues.

People generally show a gradually increasing decoding skill from kindergarten

until ages 20 to 30 (Dimitrovsky, 1964; Harrigan, 1984; Markham & Adams,

1992; Nowicki & Duke, 1994; Rosenthal et al., 1979). More focused investiga-

tions have been able to identify the ages when specific skills are gained; for exam-

ple, children 6 and 7 years old could not tell smiles of enjoyment from those

of nonenjoyment, which differ in muscle movements around the eyes, but children

9 and 10 years old could (Gosselin, Perron, Legault, & Campanella, 2002). The

great majority of research into developmental trends has been concerned with judg-

ing emotions from nonverbal cues. Recently, McLarney-Vesotski, Bernieri, and

Rempala (2006) also found improvements across ages 8, 13, and adult for a test

of judging personality traits from short video excerpts.

The trend reverses, however, as a person ages. Numerous studies comparing

young adults to older adults show a decline in accuracy in judging nonverbal cues

with age. For example, women averaging 62 years of age scored significantly lower

on the multichannel PONS test than women averaging 22 years of age (Lieberman,

Rigo, & Campain, 1988), and other researchers have found deficits in adults over

age 65 compared to younger adults (college aged and in their 20s) for face, body,

and voice cues examined separately (Isaacowitz et al., 2007; Ruffman, Henry,

Livingstone, & Phillips, 2008). Finally, Phillips, Scott, Henry, Mowat, and Bell

(2010) found that older individuals with Alzheimer’s disease had difficulties decod-

ing subtle facial expressions of emotion. Given that people are living longer and are

thus more likely to suffer from particular cognition-related syndromes, such as

Alzheimer’s, it will be increasingly important for researchers to assess deficits

in nonverbal decoding skill among the elderly and understand the quality-of-life

implications associated with those deficits.

GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY

An important question is whether scores on tests of nonverbal sensitivity reflect a

unique ability or a general cognitive skill. If the latter is the case, researchers do

not need to develop sensitivity tests but could administer standard cognitive tests,

such as IQ tests. A recent meta-analysis revealed a small-to-medium positive cor-

relation between general cognitive ability and nonverbal sensitivity (Murphy &

Hall, 2011). However, the relation was small enough to suggest that the two

abilities are far from synonymous. Instead, a person’s skill at judging nonverbal

behavior likely depends to some extent upon, but is not defined completely by,

his or her general level of intelligence. In addition, as seen later in this chapter,

a relation does seem to exist between decoding skill and academic performance

in children, though again, not one that is large enough to suggest that the skills

are interchangeable.

74 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

OTHER PERSONAL CORRELATES

Adults who do well on tests of decoding nonverbal cues have been found to exhibit

certain personal and interpersonal characteristics, based on much research and

many published summaries (e.g., Carney & Harrigan, 2003; Funder & Harris,

1986; Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009; Marsh, Kozak, & Ambady, 2007;

Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004; Rosenthal et al., 1979). High-scoring adults

are better adjusted, less hostile and manipulating, more interpersonally democratic

and encouraging, more tolerant, more helpful to others, more open to experience,

more conscientious, more extraverted, more in need of social inclusion, less shy,

less anxious, more likely to believe they control what happens to them, more

warm, more empathic, more popular, more reported by others to be interpersonally

sensitive, and better able to judge others’interpersonal sensitivity. In many ways,

high-scoring adults appear to have a positive interpersonal orientation to other

people. This is interesting because those who are open, positive, agreeable, and

invested in interpersonal relationships are also better at judging people’spersonal-

ity traits (Fast, Reimer, & Funder, 2008; Letzring, 2008; Vogt & Colvin, 2003).

The relevance of a positive interpersonal orientation to enhanced interpersonal

sensitivity should not apply to personal encounters only, but rather extend to

professional ones as well, such as between a clinician and his or her patients

(Hall, 2011a).

Superior skill in decoding nonverbal cues also has occupational benefits. High-

scoring adults perform better in the workplace, as rated by their supervisors, and

have more satisfying personal relationships. Moreover, nonverbal decoding accu-

racy has recently been found to predict objective outcomes relevant to workplace

success, such as attaining more favorable negotiation outcomes (Elfenbein, Foo,

White, Tan, & Aik, 2007) and performing objectively better as a salesperson

(Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki, 2007).

Children in preschool and/or elementary school who score higher at decoding

face, posture, gesture, or tone of voice have been found to be more popular and

more socially competent, less anxious, less emotionally disturbed, less aggressive,

and less depressed, and they are higher in internal locus of control (e.g., Baum &

Nowicki, 1998; Izard, Fine, Schultz, Mostow, Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001;

Lancelot & Nowicki, 1997; McClure & Nowicki, 2001; Nowicki & Carton,

1997; Nowicki & Duke, 1994; Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998). Conversely, difficul-

ties in judging facial expressions may be associated with peer problems among

boys and learning difficulties among girls in elementary school (Goodfellow &

Nowicki, 2009).

A test that consists of black Americans’facial expressions shows an array of

correlates among black test-takers (Nowicki, Glanville, & Demertzis, 1998); for

example, better decoding scores were associated with higher self-esteem and more

internal locus of control in both children and college students. When this test was

given along with a corresponding test showing white adult facial expressions to

samples of black and white college students, the white participants were less accu-

rate than blacks when judging blacks’expressions, but the two groups did not dif-

fer in their accuracy of judging whites’expressions. Subsequent research on white

and black schoolchildren showed that popularity with peers was related to success

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 75

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

in decoding facial expressions of the students’own ethnic group, but not those of

the other group (Glanville & Nowicki, 2002).

Children who score higher on nonverbal decoding tests also score higher on

academic achievement (Halberstadt & Hall, 1980; Izard, Fine, Schultz, Mostow,

Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001; Nowicki & Duke, 1994). Several studies suggest

that although general cognitive ability may contribute to the ability to understand

nonverbal communication, nonverbal skills may in turn influence academic

achievement, possibly through their impact on teacher-student relationships.

Halberstadt and Hall found that children who scored higher on the PONS test

were perceived by their teachers as smarter, even when the pupils’actual academic

and IQ scores were controlled statistically. Izard and colleagues found that the

ability to understand facial expressions at age 5 predicted teachers’ratings of

academic competence at age 9, controlling for objectively tested cognitive ability.

It is possible that nonverbally sensitive youngsters create such a good impression

that adults either want to spend more time with them or attribute greater cognitive

ability to them, which may create a positive, self-fulfilling prophecy in which these

children are taught more and encouraged more, leading to actual gains in their

academic achievement. One study has found that decoding skill also seems to have

a direct role in the learning process. Bernieri (1991) found that high school

students who scored higher on the PONS test learned more from a peer in a brief

teaching session than did students who scored lower.

Although it is generally difficult to think of any benefits of a large amount of

television viewing, Feldman, Coats, and Spielman (1996) hypothesized that chil-

dren might actually learn to decode emotional expressions from television, where

such expressions tend to be plentiful as well as exaggerated. And they were right:

Elementary schoolchildren who watched over 14 hours of television weekly were

more accurate in decoding facial expressions of emotion than children who watched

7orfewerhours.

Certain groups tend to have greater nonverbal decoding ability. The top three

groups on the PONS test were actors, students studying nonverbal behavior, and

students studying visual arts. Buck’s (1976) research on the interpretation of facial

expressions found that students who were fine arts majors were better decoders

than math and science majors.

Psychologically damaging experiences early in life may also affect accuracy at

decoding nonverbal cues. Hodgins and Belch (2000) found that college students

who had been exposed to parental violence growing up were worse at judging

happy cues than students who had not been, but they did not differ when judging

other emotional expressions. And Pollak and Sinha (2002) found that abused and

maltreated children had a lower threshold for identifying anger in facial expressions.

People suffering from mental illness score considerably lower than norm

groups on the PONS test (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Other studies concur that patients

with schizophrenia, with both chronic and acute forms of the illness, judge facial and

vocal expressions less accurately than unimpaired groups, regardless of whether they

are medicated (Edwards, Jackson, & Pattison, 2002; Mandal, Pandey, & Prasad,

1998; Mueser, Penn, Blanchard, & Bellack, 1997). Though groups with various

kinds of psychological disturbance often have a generalized decoding deficit,

sometimes the deficit is specific; for example, groups with psychopathic personality

76 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

disorders and other documented antisocial behaviors were selectively worse than

control groups when judging fearful facial expressions (Marsh & Blair, 2008), and

depressed patients were selectively worse than a control group when decoding

sad facial expressions (Surguladze et al., 2004).

Examination of error patterns can also be instructive for psychologically

impaired groups. On the PONS test, decrements in decoding ability were found in

boys referred to clinics for various kinds of childhood psychopathology (Russell,

Stokes, Jones, Czogalik, & Rohleder, 1993). Interestingly, boys with problems of

self-control and social incompetence made the majority of their decoding errors

on PONS items requiring a judgment about the dominant-submissive dimension of

behavior, consistent with previous findings that aggressive boys tend to see aggres-

siveness in neutral stimuli (Dodge & Newman, 1981). Similarly, preschool children

who were rated by their teachers as hostile and dependent were biased in their

judgments of their classmates’facial expressions; they were more likely to say the

expressions were sad or angry and less likely to say they were happy, compared to

children who were not hostile and dependent (Barth & Bastiani, 1997).

A group known for having interpersonal communication difficulties is people

with autism (Philippot, Feldman, & McGee, 1992). Autism is a disorder largely

defined in terms of deficient verbal, and especially nonverbal, communication and

an extreme inability to relate to other human beings. The neurologist Oliver Sacks

has written about Temple Grandin, an autistic academician whose insights greatly

illuminate our understanding of the psychological experience of autism. Grandin’s

understanding of others’feelings and intentions comes from “immense intellectual

effort”as opposed to the unconscious, intuitive process used by nonautistic people.

Commenting on Grandin’s childhood experiences, Sacks writes:

Something was going on between the other kids, something swift, subtle, constantly

changing—an exchange of meanings, a negotiation, a swiftness of understanding so

remarkable that sometimes she wondered if they were all telepathic. She is now aware

of the existence of these social signals. She can infer them, she says, but she herself cannot

perceive them, cannot participate in this magical communication directly.…This is why

she often feels excluded, an alien. (1993, p. 116)

Not surprisingly, individuals with autism—and a milder, related condition,

Asperger’s syndrome—consistently perform worse than normal-functioning people

on tests of decoding facial and vocal expressions (Rutherford, Baron-Cohen, &

Wheelwright, 2002). Deficits in decoding are not restricted to facial and vocal

cues, though; adolescents with Asperger’s syndrome, for example, appear to

be slower at recognizing postural cues of boredom, interest, and disagreement

(Doody & Bull, 2011).

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Substance abuse can damage the brain, resulting in specific cognitive impairments,

including nonverbal decoding skill. For example, alcohol and opiate dependence

have been linked to a reduced ability to decode facial expressions of emotion

(Kornreich et al., 2003). The ability to recognize a change in facial expression

from neutral to affective in nature (e.g., sad, angry) is slower among heavy

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 77

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

cannabis users (Platt, Kamboj, Morgan, & Curran, 2010). Finally, alcoholic

patients score lower than norm groups on the PONS test (Rosenthal et al., 1979).

An intriguing experiment using photographs of six emotions found that when non-

alcoholic participants were given alcohol, their decoding accuracy was impaired,

especially men’s ability to identify anger, disgust, and contempt (Borrill, Rosen, &

Summerfield, 1987). Perhaps some of the antisocial behavior of drinkers is linked

to an impairment in their sensitivity to these cues.

CULTURE

The PONS test has been administered to people from over 20 nations (Rosenthal

et al., 1979). People from countries most similar to the United States in language

and culture—relative to modernization, widespread use of communications media,

and so on—scored highest. The PONS research, therefore, offers a synthesis of

two opposed positions on the universality of emotional expressions: One states

that these are universally used and recognized, and the other states that nonverbal

communication is as culture specific as verbal language itself. The universalist posi-

tion is supported by the fact that all cultures were able to perform at levels higher

than chance on the PONS test. However, the specificity argument is also supported

by the fact that groups more culturally similar to that of the person shown in the

PONS video were able to extract more accurate meaning from the cues. Elfenbein

and Ambady (2002), in a review of many studies, confirmed that people have a

slight advantage in accuracy when judging encoders who come from their same

culture. (Chapters 2, 9, and 12 offer further discussion of cultural universality

and relativity.)

TASK FACTORS AFFECTING NONVERBAL DECODING ACCURACY

You may think the particular channels tested—face, voice, and so on—make a dif-

ference in a person’s nonverbal receiving accuracy. Generally, judgments of visual

channels, especially the face, are more accurate than judgments of the voice,

though generalizations like this must be made with caution, because tests of differ-

ent channels may vary in other methodological ways. Several studies show that

emotions and attitudes of liking and disliking are more accurately perceived in the

face than in the voice. Although you may be better able to recognize many emo-

tions and attitudes if you get both audio and visual cues, some messages may be

more effectively communicated in one mode than in another; for example, vocal

cues may be more effective for communicating anxiety and dominance than other

communication channels. And studies show that if you are accurate in recognizing

facial signals, you will also be accurate in perceiving vocal ones (Zuckerman,

Lipets, Koivumaki, & Rosenthal, 1975). Also, accuracy is usually higher if the

expressions are posed rather than spontaneous, but if you do well in decoding one

of these modalities, you will probably do well in the other (Zuckerman, Hall,

DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1976). It is clear that some emotional and attitudinal states

are more difficult to judge than others. At one extreme, it is very difficult to tell

if someone is lying, and at the other, it is very easy to identify posed facial expres-

sions showing basic emotions such as disgust or joy.

78 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

We might also speculate, as did the PONS researchers, that the amount of time

a receiver was exposed to a nonverbal signal would affect his or her accuracy

in identification. The PONS scenes were presented to people with the exposure

time varied: for example, 1/24 of a second, 3/24 of a second, and so on up to

2 seconds (Rosenthal et al., 1979). Accuracy did increase as exposure time

increased. Yet research on judgments made of exposures varying between

2 seconds and 5 minutes has shown that more information often does not yield

higher accuracy, and when it does, the differences are often not dramatic (Ambady,

Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000; Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007).

People’s moods can influence how they perceive others’nonverbal behavior.

Positive and negative moods produce a bias to see corresponding emotions in

others’faces (Niedenthal, Halberstadt, Margolin, & Innes-Ker, 2000; Schiffen-

bauer, 1974). A sad mood has been shown to reduce the accuracy of judging

others (Ambady & Gray, 2002), which lends support to the argument that sad

moods promote a deliberative information-processing style that can detract from

accuracy of nonverbal judgments that would otherwise be made in a more auto-

matic, nonanalytic manner. Paradoxically though, a history of major depression is

associated with an enhanced ability to judge others’mental states based on only

their eye expressions (Harkness, Jacobson, Duong, & Sabbagh, 2010). It could

be that the assessment of mental states (e.g., Is the person reflective? Ashamed?

Confident?) benefits from a more deliberative information-processing style when

only one cue (the eyes) is available to decoders compared to judgments of felt

emotion that require decoders to integrate multiple cues, as is the case when inter-

preting facial expressions of emotion.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCURATE NONVERBAL SENDERS

When broadly conceived, a definition of nonverbal sending is even more complex

than a definition of nonverbal decoding. In a sense, nonverbal sending is everything

of an interpersonal nature that we do without words. Indeed, it is inevitable that

nonverbal cues will be perceived and interpreted by others—even if a person’sinten-

tion is to appear neutral or unexpressive. Attempts to control nonverbal cues by try-

ing not to express them at all are likely to be interpreted as dullness, withdrawal,

uneasiness, aloofness, or even deceptiveness (DePaulo, 1992). As it is sometimes

said, you cannot not communicate nonverbally.

A person’s nonverbal sending is a mixture of spontaneous cues and more

deliberate or intentional ones. When both spontaneous and posed expressions are

obtained from the same people, these two abilities are positively related; that is, if

a person’s spontaneous facial expression to pleasant stimuli, such as a television

comedy scene, and unpleasant stimuli, such as a gory accident scene, were easy to

“read,”that person would also show skill in performing posed expressions.

In daily life, we deliberately convey a host of impressions of ourselves as nice,

smart, youthful, honest, dominant, brave, and so forth through nonverbal chan-

nels. We also use nonverbal communication intentionally as part of our effort to

act socially appropriate: for example, to be respectful to authorities, dignified in a

fancy restaurant, or polite in the face of disappointment. Children attain these

more deliberate self-presentation skills through a long process that combines social

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 79

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

experience with their own development of identity; numerous studies testify to

developmental trends in these skills (DePaulo, 1992; Harrigan, 1984; Nowicki &

Duke, 1994).

According to DePaulo, success at regulating nonverbal behaviors to promote

our public presentation depends on knowledge, skill, practice, experience, confi-

dence, and motivation. The success of nonverbal self-presentation is also limited by

the inherent controllability of different nonverbal channels—the face, for example, is

believed to be more controllable than voice or body—as well as individual differ-

ences among people and the intensity of the reality we might wish to mask. For

example, the angrier you are, the harder it will be to act as if everything is fine.

One individual difference that definitely affects self-presentation is spontaneous

expressiveness of the sort discussed in relation to the slide-viewing paradigm; for

example, a person may not realize how much his or her face reflects the content of

a gruesome or romantic scene viewed on television. These differences are observ-

able in infancy and remain stable over the course of development. The spontane-

ously expressive person has many social advantages, as we outline shortly, but

may be handicapped whenever self-presentation calls for application of display

rules or deception. It is suggested, for example, that a highly expressive person

may not make a good poker player (DePaulo, 1992).

Another factor influencing nonverbal self-presentation involves lasting physical

and expressive qualities that bestow a particular demeanor on a person. The man

with thick, bushy eyebrows may look threatening no matter how gentle he actually

is. Research finds that some people’s demeanors tend to make them look honest

or dishonest or pleasant or unpleasant, no matter what they actually feel or do

(Wallbott & Scherer, 1986; Zuckerman, DeFrank, Hall, Larrance, & Rosenthal,

1979). Demeanor can work for or against you, depending on your goals; the socially

skilled person may learn to complement demeanor with other expressive cues to

enhance self-presentation. For example, a person with a babyish face, which others

are likely to perceive as honest-looking (Zebrowitz, 1997), may develop a repertoire

of “innocent”nonverbal cues to enhance the impression of sincerity.

Most research on nonverbal sending accuracy involves emotions. The person

who is spontaneously emotionally expressive tends to be female and reports less

ability to control his or her emotions (Tucker & Riggio, 1988). It has been suggested

that not allowing free expression can take a toll on health and cognitive functioning

(Berry & Pennebaker, 1993). People who are less expressive experience a higher

level of internal physiological arousal (Buck, 1977; Buck, Miller, & Caul, 1974),

and experiments show short-term effects of emotional suppression with negative

effects on cardiovascular activity, blood pressure, and memory for stimuli presented

during the suppression of emotion (Butler et al., 2003; Richards & Gross, 1999).

Accuracy in expressing emotions deliberately increases through childhood, but

then it levels off. Borod et al. (2004) compared young, middle-aged, and older

adults in their ability to pose several emotions using the face. Clear age effects

were observed, with the greatest deficit occurring between the older adult group

compared to the other two groups.

The seemingly elusive concept of charisma has been operationally defined as

expressiveness, including both spontaneous and more intentional sending. Research

with the Affective Communication Test (ACT)—which measures expressiveness

80 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

through self-reported statements such as “I show that I like someone by hugging or

touching that person,”“I like being watched by a large group of people,”“I don’t

usually have a neutral facial expression,”and “I can easily express emotion

over the telephone”—documents that the expressive person is socially influential

(Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Friedman & Riggio, 1981; Fried-

man, Riggio, & Casella, 1988). People who scored as more expressive on the ACT

were more likely to have given a lecture, to have been elected to office in a political

organization, to influence others’moods, and to be perceived as more likable when

meeting new people; in a sample of physicians, they were likely to have more

patients than their counterparts who scored as less expressive. High scorers were

also more likely to have had acting experience, to have had a job in sales, to desire

an occupation that uses social skills—such as counselor, minister, or diplomat—

and to be extraverted, affiliative, and dominant. Comparable findings have

emerged for a longer self-report instrument designed to measure seven dimensions

of social skills (Riggio, 1986).

People can have insight into their spontaneous expressiveness, but research

often finds a weak relationship between participants’self-reports of posed encoding

skill and their ability to act out emotions on purpose (Riggio, Widaman, & Fried-

man, 1985; Zuckerman & Larrance, 1979). Studies that actually measure people’s

nonverbal sending abilities, rather than asking for self-reports, have also produced

a variety of findings. Females manifest greater encoding skill than males in both

posed and spontaneous facial accuracy (Buck, Miller, & Caul, 1974; Friedman,

Riggio, & Segall, 1980; Wagner, Buck, & Winterbotham, 1993; Zaidel & Mehra-

bian, 1969). Possibly contributing to these effects is that females are more success-

ful than males at mimicking facial expressions shown in photographs and on

videotape (Berenbaum & Rotter, 1992). However, evidence is mixed on whether a

gender difference applies for vocal encoding of emotions. Also, the gender-related

difference in sending ability has not been found with children between 4 and 6

years old for spontaneous facial expressions (Buck, 1975). Buck (1977) actually

found preschool boys to be more accurate senders of spontaneous facial cues than

preschool girls, but boys’accuracy declined at ages 4 through 6, perhaps due to

socialization pressure related to the male gender role.

Just as boys appear to be learning the expression norms for their gender, girls

are learning theirs as well. Aside from becoming more facially expressive, girls

learn earlier to use nonverbal cues according to “display rules”(see Chapter 9)

that dictate what behaviors are socially appropriate. At preschool and elementary

school ages, girls showed less negativity than boys after receiving a disappointing

gift when in the presence of an adult, although control conditions showed they

were no less disappointed than the boys (Cole, 1986; Davis, 1995).

Some personality characteristics also have been associated with accurate sen-

ders of nonverbal information. High “self-monitors”—people who are very aware

of how they should be acting in various situations and are willing to do so to

advance their self-interest—are better able to send emotional information through

facial and vocal channels (Snyder, 1974). People who are more extraverted are

higher on behavioral measures of expressiveness, whereas those who are more neu-

rotic are lower on such measures (Riggio & Riggio, 2002). Buck’s (1975) personal-

ity profile for young children shows many of the same characteristics reviewed

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 81

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

earlier for decoders. Children who are effective senders are extraverted, outgoing,

active, popular, and somewhat bossy and impulsive. Ineffective senders tend to

play alone and are introverted, passive, shy, controlled, and rated as cooperative.

Among adults, highly accurate senders are more dominant and exhibitionistic

(Friedman, Riggio, & Segall, 1980). Better adult senders also make an impression

of greater expressiveness, confidence, and likability; and among males, they use

more fluent speech, more fluent body movements, and more smiles (Riggio &

Friedman, 1986).

For many years, clinicians and researchers have noticed expression deficits in

individuals with schizophrenia. Compared to individuals without the disorder,

these people tend to show reduced facial expressivity, are more likely to show neg-

ative than positive expressions, show less congruence between verbal and facial

messages, and are less accurate in facial and vocal expressions of affect (Mandal,

Pandey, & Prasad, 1998). Individuals with alexithymia, or difficulty in identifying

one’s own emotions, also have reduced facial expressiveness when describing posi-

tive or negative events from their past (Wagner & Lee, 2008). Finally, socially anx-

ious children may have more problems expressing their anger on their face than do

inattentive–hyperactive children (Walker, Nowicki, Jones, & Heimann, 2011).

Noller (1980; Noller & Gallois, 1986) studied the accuracy of husbands’and

wives’nonverbal communication to each other. Women were better encoders than

men, both in terms of perceivers’ability to judge the women accurately and in

terms of the women’s correct use of the particular cues associated with a given

message (e.g., smiling for a positive message, frowning for a negative message).

Marital adjustment was related to encoding skill among men. Men in happier mar-

riages sent clearer messages through the face. These husbands were also more likely

to offer a correct cue, such as a smile during positive messages, than less happy

husbands, whereas less happy husbands used more eyebrow flashes, a cue not asso-

ciated with a positive message. This research suggests that marital unhappiness

might be partly due to the husband’s inadequacy in nonverbal communication.

Unhappy husbands were, in fact, more accurate in decoding the nonverbal behav-

ior of an unknown married woman than that of their own spouse.

PUTTING DECODING AND ENCODING TOGETHER

There are two ways in which decoding and encoding can be considered together. The

first way is to ask whether skilled encoders are also skilled decoders. Interestingly,

this question has not been definitively answered despite considerable research. Some

researchers have found no relationship, or even a negative relationship, between

sending and receiving ability; for example, Lanzetta and Kleck (1970) found that

people who were accurate facial senders were poor receivers and vice versa. Others

find that the two kinds of skill are positively related, leading to the hypothesis of a

“general communication ability”(Zuckerman, Hall, DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1976).

A recent meta-analysis revealed a positive association between encoding and decod-

ing accuracy for intentional displays of emotion (Elfenbein & Eisenkraft, 2010).

Nonetheless, there is quite a bit of unexplained variation in the results of

studies examining the relation between encoding and decoding skill. A negative

relation between encoding and decoding skill has been theorized to stem from the

82 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

childhood socialization experience, in particular, the communication environment

within the family (Izard, 1971; Zuckerman, Lipets, Koivumaki, & Rosenthal,

1975). The reasoning goes like this: In a highly expressive family, expression skills

will be well developed, but because emotional cues are so clearly sent by other fam-

ily members, there is no need to fine-tune one’s decoding skill, and, therefore,

decoding ability remains relatively undeveloped. However, in unexpressive homes,

a child’s expression skills will be poorly developed, but his or her decoding skill is

sharpened, because the child is forced to read minimal or ambiguous cues coming

from other family members. The skill developed from reading family members

who are just barely showing their feelings is hypothesized to generalize, so that a

person from an unexpressive family is predicted to score relatively high on a stan-

dard test of decoding nonverbal cues. Using the Family Expressiveness Question-

naire to measure the communication environment in the family, Halberstadt

(1983, 1986) found support for the predictions stemming from this theory; namely,

that encoding skill would be positively related to greater freedom of emotional

expression in the family, and that decoding skill would be negatively related to

freedom of emotional expression. Consistent with this, a recent study showed that

family expressiveness was negatively related to decoding facial expressions of emo-

tion (Halberstadt, Dennis, & Hess, 2011).

The second way we can consider decoding and encoding together is to

acknowledge that they occur together in the communication process. Although we

have discussed them as separate skills that can be compared, in real interpersonal

interaction, these skills are used together. A person is required to encode and

decode simultaneously—to act out or display feelings, reactions, intentions, and

attitudes while at the same time noticing the other’s cues, forming impressions,

interpreting the meanings of expressions, and evaluating feedback from his or her

own behavior. This “parallel processing”aspect of interpersonal communication

puts many demands on the cognitive system, insofar as it is difficult to allocate

attention or effort to all of these tasks at the same time. The process is made some-

what easier by the fact that a certain amount of nonverbal processing is so well

learned that it is rather automatic, requiring few cognitive resources (i.e., mental

attention). The complex sending and receiving of turn-taking cues in conversation

is a good example: We know how to do this without much conscious thought.

However, when individuals engage in strategic behavior—as in deliberately trying

to persuade someone—or when they suffer from social anxiety, considerable expen-

diture of cognitive resources is required that can selectively affect either the encoding

or the decoding process. For instance, socially anxious people tend to be more self-

focused, which can detract them from processing another person’s cues (Patterson,

1995). Indeed, more socially anxious people do score lower on nonverbal decoding

tests than less socially anxious people.

ON BEING AN OBSERVER OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

The observation of Expression is by no means easy.

—Charles Darwin

As you set out to read the remaining chapters of this book, now seems a good time

to reflect on how you can best use the knowledge contained there. You will learn

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 83

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

quite a lot about the meanings and functions of nonverbal behaviors conveyed in

all cue channels. You will learn that nonverbal cues are major indicators of emo-

tion and play a crucial role in making social impressions and influencing others.

You have just learned that people differ markedly in their skills in judging and

using nonverbal cues. Although certain groups, such as actors and mental patients,

fall at the extremes of skill, a great deal of variation from person to person exists

even in the middle, so-called normal range.

The research indicates that there may not be strong general skills; instead, there

appear to be distinctive skills in different domains. A person may be skilled at

judging emotions in the face but not in the voice; another may have the opposite

pattern. Sarah may be good at identifying nonverbal deceptions, whereas Jim spe-

cializes in recognizing faces, and Martha can tell who stands where in the pecking

order simply from hearing their tone of voice. In short, there are many ways to be

accurate in nonverbal communication. Because so much of a person’s time is spent

observing other people, either passively as when observing strangers on a train or

bus, or actively as when in direct interaction with others, one is wise to try to

develop good observational habits. The following list can be useful to observers of

any human transaction. At times some of the following information will contribute

to observer bias, but the information may be necessary at some point to interpret

the observations fully:

1. Find out about the participants—age, sex, position or status, relationship to

each other, previous history, and the like.

2. Find out about the setting of the interaction—kind of environment, relation-

ship of the participants to the environment, and expected behavior in that

environment.

3. Find out about the purposes of the interaction—what are people’s stated as

well as hidden goals, compatibility of goals, and so on.

4. Find out about the social behavior—who does what to or with whom, form of

the behavior, its intensity, who initiates it, apparent objective of the behavior,

effect on the other interactants, and so on.

5. Find out about the frequency and duration of such behavior—when it occurs,

how long it lasts, whether it recurs, frequency of recurrence, and how typical

such behavior is in the situation.

You will also have to decide whether the cues you see are intentional or

unintentional. The term unintentional may itself have a range of meaning; a

behavior may be truly accidental, or it may have significance not recognized by

its enactor. Attributions of intention also may vary depending on the nature of

the behavior in question. Some people believe that spoken words are generally

designed with some goal in mind, but sometimes people say things unintention-

ally or without much advance planning. Certain environments cause us to focus

or attend to the issue of intention more than others. Take the act of being

bumped into by another person: At a crowded football stadium, the question of

the person’s intent may not even be considered, but being bumped into while

walking down an uncrowded hallway may be another matter entirely. A full

understanding of the nuances of intentionality poses many difficult barriers

(Stamp & Knapp, 1990).

84 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE FALLIBILITY OF HUMAN PERCEPTION

Despite our suggestions concerning how to improve your observational skills, it

is important to stress that human behavior and perception are extraordinarily com-

plex. And even though humans are extraordinarily gifted, relative to other life

forms, in judging the meaning of behavior, we are not infallible creatures. Even

with the best of intentions, it is not unusual for several observers of the same

event to “see”several different things, nor is it unusual for one observer to “see”

different things in the same event at different times. Consequently, it would be

wise of us to take the following into account when considering factors that may

contribute to differences in perception.

First, we must recognize that our perceptions are structured by our own

cultural conditioning, education, and personal experiences. Adults teach children

what they think are critical dimensions of others by what they choose to talk

about and make note of. Thus, we form associations that inevitably enter into our

observations. For instance, we may be unable to see what we consider to be contra-

dictory traits or behaviors in others; that is, can you conceive of a person who is

both quiet and active? Wealthy and accessible? Short and romantic? Another

aspect of this internally consistent worldview that may affect our observations con-

cerns preconceptions about what we will see. For example, “My observations will

take place in a nursing home. Therefore, the people I will observe will be noncom-

municative, sick, and inactive.”Social psychological experimentation has produced

many demonstrations showing that people see what they expect or wish to see,

often without any awareness that they are biasing their observations in this way.

Sometimes we project our own qualities onto the object of our attention; after

all, we think, if these qualities are a part of us, they must be true of others. Some-

times such projection stems less from the desire to flatter ourselves than from a dis-

torted worldview, as in bullies who see others as hostile and threatening. We

sometimes reverse the process when we want to see ourselves as unique: for exam-

ple, “I am a rational person, but most people aren’t.”This interaction between our

own needs and desires, or even our temporary emotional states and what we see in

others, sometimes causes us to see only what we want to see or causes us to miss

what may be obvious to others. This process is known as selective perception.

Because of these perceptual biases, observers must check their observations against

the independent reports of others, or they must check the consistency of their own

observations at several different points over an extended period of time.

We must also recognize that our perceptions are influenced by which people

we choose to observe. We probably do not use the same criteria for observing our

friends and parents as we do when observing strangers. We may attribute more

positively perceived behaviors to our friend’s personality but attribute negatively

perceived behaviors to situational constraints. Familiarity can either assist observa-

tion or create observational “noise,”but it does affect our perceptions. Further-

more, some phenomena will cause us to zero in on one particular kind of

behavior, observing it very closely but missing simultaneous behaviors occurring

elsewhere. It might be that the behavior receiving the scrutiny is bigger, more

active, or just more interesting. Or it might be that we monitor deviant behavior

more closely than normative or expected behavior. When observing a conversation,

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 85

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

we cannot possibly attend to everything as it happens. Sometimes we will look for,

see, respond to, and interpret a particular set of cues; at other times, the same cues

will go unnoticed or be disregarded. Sometimes observers fall prey to the natural

tendency to follow conversational speaking turns, viewing only the speaker and

missing the behavior of the nonspeakers. And of course, some phenomena are so

complex, so minute, or so frequent that observer fatigue becomes a major concern.

Even if two people observe the same event and attach similar meanings to it,

they may express their observations differently. Others may suspect, then, that the

two observers saw two different things, such as the difference in describing a facial

expression as happiness, joy, delight, pleasure, or amusement. Or it might be the

difference between saying “She struck him”versus “She pushed him,”or between

describing a girl as “aggressive”and a boy as “exhibitionistic”when they engage

in the same behavior. Hence the language we use to express our perceptions can

be an important variable in judging the accuracy of those perceptions.

Finally, we must be aware of the difference between factual, nonevaluative

descriptions of behavior and the interpretations we give to these descriptions. At

the most basic level, we can say that a successful observer is careful not to confuse

pure description with inferences or interpretations about the behavior. Failure at

the inference stage is aptly illustrated by the familiar story of the scientist who told

his frog to jump, and after a few minutes, the frog jumped. The scientist then

amputated one of the frog’s hind legs, and again he told the frog to jump. He told

the frog to jump several more times, and eventually the frog made a feeble attempt

to jump with one hind leg. Then the scientist cut off the other hind leg and repeat-

edly ordered the frog to jump. When no jumping occurred, the scientist recorded

in his log, “Upon amputation of one of the frog’s hind legs, it begins to lose its

hearing; upon severing both hind legs, the frog becomes totally deaf.”This story

illustrates clearly the huge gap that can exist between the factual evidence and the

interpretations that are made.

When we are judging the meanings of the highly complex behaviors that make

up nonverbal communication, it is quite possible to perceive the behaviors accu-

rately but not know, or be wrong about, what they mean. No dictionary of non-

verbal cue meanings exists in which we can simply look up a cue to find its

meaning. Thus, we must constantly be on guard against facile interpretations

about meaning. We must also be cautious about assuming cause-and-effect expla-

nations when, in fact, there could be several different paths of causation between

one variable and another.

SUMMARY

This chapter dealt with nonverbal skills, how to

develop them, and the characteristics of people

who have such skills. In the first half of the

chapter, we reviewed different definitions of

communication skill as well as the major method-

ologies for measuring sending and receiving skills.

We also presented findings on the training of

nonverbal skills, using methods such as feedback,

observation, and role-playing. The second half

of the chapter examined traits and conditions

associated with effectiveness in nonverbal send-

ing (encoding) and receiving (decoding). Most

research in this area has focused on questions

of decoding ability. We reviewed a large number

of different correlates of accuracy in encoding

and decoding nonverbal cues, among which

86 PART I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

one of the most consistent is the tendency for

females to be more accurate communicators as

both encoders and decoders.

We also discussed how accuracy in decoding

may vary with the channel in which the infor-

mation is presented, what characteristics the

encoders have, and how long we heard or saw

the behavior. In spite of these possible varia-

tions, some evidence suggests that if you are

proficient in decoding one channel, you will

be proficient in decoding others, and if you are

proficient in decoding posed expressions, you

will be proficient in decoding spontaneous

ones too. We also presented problems associated

with simultaneously encoding and decoding

nonverbal cues, as we routinely do in conversa-

tion. Evidence is mixed on whether being a good

decoder implies being a good encoder. It does

not necessarily follow that proficiency in one

skill, encoding or decoding, makes a person pro-

ficient in the other, although sometimes this is

the case.

Finally, we talked about what being a good

observer of nonverbal behavior entails. Knowing

the most likely meanings of particular cues and

cue combinations is important, but so are other

factors relating to our attitudes and the context

in which observation is taking place.

Answers to Figure 3-2: (a) strangers posing together, (b) woman on the left, and (c) playing with her

baby daughter.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How much insight do you think people have

into the cues they use to make judgments

about others’states and traits?

2. It has been suggested that abilities to send and

receive nonverbal expressions may be

inversely related, in part due to the expression

norms within families. Is your own family

high or low on expressiveness? How might

your family’s expression norms have influ-

enced your encoding and decoding skills?

3. The ability to decode other people’s nonver-

bal emotional expressions is only one defini-

tion of nonverbal sensitivity. Think of some

other definitions of nonverbal sensitivity, and

analyze why and when they are useful.

4. Are there any moral or ethical issues related

to the decoding and encoding of nonverbal

cues?

5. Do you think that too much knowledge or

skill in nonverbal communication could be

a bad thing? Argue both for and against this

hypothesis.

6. Sometimes it is said that people enact and

interpret nonverbal cues automatically, that

is, without analytic thought or intention. For

different behaviors and/or skills that you can

point to, what do you think are the relative

contributions of deliberate intention versus

automatic processing?

CHAPTER 3THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND SEND NONVERBAL SIGNALS 87

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE COMMUNICATION

ENVIRONMENT

[PART II ]

The features of the environment within which our interactions take place can exert

a powerful influence on that interaction. Lighting, color schemes, furniture, and

architecture, among other features, affect what we say and even how often we

say it; sometimes we deliberately structure these features in order to obtain certain

responses from others. Part II explores the way we affect and are affected by the

space we have within communication environments, as a preface to discussing, in

Parts III and IV, the behavior of the people who do the communicating.

89

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT

ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION

[CHAPTER4]

When people communicate with one another, features of the surrounding environ-

ment always exert an influence on their interaction. What are these environmental

features, and how do they affect us?

First, let us look at a familiar communication environment: the classroom.

Modern architects experiment with different designs, but many classes still take

place in a rectangular room with straight rows of chairs for student seating. A row

of windows along one side of the room may determine the direction students

face, and consequently determine the front of the room. It is not uncommon for

classroom seats to be permanently attached to the floor for ease of maintenance

and tidiness. Classrooms typically have some type of partition, often a desk or

lectern, that serves as a boundary between the teacher and students. It is not hard

for students and teachers to identify problems encountered in environments

designed for learning: poor lighting and acoustics; inadequate climate control;

external construction noises; inoperative or nonexistent electrical outlets; immov-

able seats; gloomy, dull, or distracting color schemes; unpleasant odors; and so

on. Both students and teachers recognize that such problems impede the purpose

for gathering in these rectangular rooms: to increase knowledge through effective

student/teacher communication. The influence of the classroom environment on

student and teacher behavior remained relatively unexplored until Sommer (1967,

1969, 1974) took a closer look. He focused his attention on the influence of

classroom design on student participation.

Every interior betrays the nonverbal skills of its inhabitants. The choice of

materials, the distribution of space, the kind of objects that command attention or

demand to be touched—as compared to those that intimidate or repel—have much

to say about the preferred sensory modalities of their owners.

—J. Ruesch and W. Kees

91

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Sommer selected several different types of classrooms for his study. He wanted

to compare the amount of student participation in these classrooms and to analyze

aspects of participatory behavior in each type. He selected seminar rooms with

movable chairs, usually arranged in a horseshoe shape; laboratories—complete

with Bunsen burners, bottles, and gas valves—that represented an extreme in

straight-row seating; a windowless room; and a room with an entire wall of

windows. Among other things, Sommer concluded the following from his studies:

1. Students and teachers who dislike their learning environment will try to avoid

it or change it.

2. In general, the amount of student participation decreases as the number of

students in the class increases. The length of a student’s participation is also

longer in smaller classes.

3. The content of student participation in large classes is more likely to be

devoted to questions of clarification or requests to repeat an idea rather than

participation focused on the ideas themselves.

4. Participation was most frequent among those students within range of the

instructor’s eye gaze. In a seminar room, the students sitting directly across

from the instructor participated more. A follow-up study by Adams and Biddle

(1970) found a zone of participation in the center of the room (see Figure 4-1).

This center zone is most likely to occur when the instructor stands in the

middle of the room because it is highly dependent on the instructor’s visual

contact with the students. If the instructor moved to the side and maintained

visual contact with the students in front of him or her, the zone of participa-

tion would no longer be in the center. But there is more to this story: Koneya

(1973) found that when high-, moderate-, and low-participating students were

FIGURE 4-1

The zone of class participation.

92 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

given a chance to select any seat they desired, high participators were most

likely to select seats in the central zone of participation. We can conclude from

this that student participation can be facilitated by visual contact with the

instructor, but that students who are likely to participate tend to position

themselves in seats that are close to the instructor or within the instructor’s

likely field of gaze. Also note that an instructor’s gaze can be used to inhibit

communication as well as facilitate it. When students feel they will be

punished—or at least not rewarded—for participating, the zone of participation

is inoperative.

5. What happens when you take moderate- and low-participating students and

deliberately seat them in the zone of participation? Koneya (1973) found that

moderate participators increased their participation, but low participators

remained low. This suggests that where students sit can alter their classroom

participation, but this effect is less likely with low participators. Haber (1982)

found that ethnic, racial, and religious minorities at five colleges tended to

select seating peripheral to the zone of participation—even when they were

a majority at a particular college.

From these studies, we can conclude that classroom seating is not random. Certain

types of people gravitate toward seats that are close to the instructor and/or within

his or her expected pattern of gaze. The instructor’s gazing patterns create a zone

where students are more likely to verbally participate, unless they are students

who initially sought seating outside of this zone and were moved within it. Even

then, we might find increased participation at some point if a teacher rewards and

supports student participation.

The world of education has changed dramatically since the time of Sommer’s

research. Students take notes (and, of course, check their Facebook pages) on

laptops, enroll in online classes, participate with other students in “discussion

boards,”meet with the instructor during his or her virtual office hours, and so on.

For some who are shy in face-to-face settings, an online setting might afford them

more opportunities to participate in a class. For those who need to see the instruc-

tor in person, an online format might be detrimental to the quality of their

education.

Even though many classrooms have changed in form (to more technologically

rich) or location (cyberspace), educators must still be aware of the setting in which

students learn. For example, online classes should be designed to be user-friendly.

A virtual classroom should be designed so as not to make one group, such as

females, feel less welcome because it is more stereotypically masculine in appear-

ance (Cheryan, Meltzoff, & Kim, 2011). Brooks (2011) examined the relationship

between classroom design and student learning in a face-to-face setting. Most of

the participants in the study were first-year, first-semester students taking Principles

of Biological Science with the same instructor. Some of these students were enrolled

in a traditional classroom where they sat at tables facing the front of the classroom,

which had a whiteboard, projection screen, and teacher’s desk. The other students

were enrolled in an active learning classroom that had round tables (which have

been shown to promote greater collaborative and student-centered learning), laptop

technology, an instructor station, and marker boards along the perimeter of the

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 93

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

room. With respect to learning outcomes, the difference between actual grades and

predicted grades based on college entrance exam scores was greater for those in the

active learning classroom than it was for those in the traditional classroom. This

meant that the active learning environment benefited students’performance to a

greater extent than did the traditional classroom.

The preceding discussion of the classroom is an example of a specific context

in which spatial relationships, architecture, and objects surrounding the partici-

pants influence the amount of interaction and learning that occur. We will examine

other environmental factors that impinge on human communication behavior

shortly. As a cautionary note, though, you should remember that the environment

is only one element in structuring such behavior. If students, administrators,

teachers, secretaries, and custodians want to run a school or university like a

prison or a dehumanized bureaucracy, changes in the classroom structure will

likely have little impact.

Throughout this chapter, we discuss a number of characteristics of environ-

ments. Let us initiate our exploration by examining the way we perceive our

surroundings, because this can significantly influence the way we feel and the way

we choose to communicate.

PERCEPTIONS OF OUR SURROUNDINGS

The number of places in which we communicate with others is limitless: buses,

homes, apartments, restaurants, offices, parks, hotels, sports arenas, factories,

libraries, movie theaters, museums, and so on. Despite their diversity, we probably

evaluate these environments along similar dimensions. Once we perceive our

environment in a certain way, we may incorporate such perceptions in the develop-

ment of the messages we send. And once these messages have been sent, the

environmental perceptions of the other person have been altered. Thus, we influ-

ence and are influenced by our environments.

How do we see our environments? We believe the following six dimensions are

central to our perceptions and consequently to how we send and receive messages.

PERCEPTIONS OF FORMALITY

One familiar dimension along which we can classify environments is a formal–

informal continuum. Reactions may be based on the objects present, the people

present, the functions performed, or any number of other variables. Individual

offices may be more formal than a lounge in the same building; a year-end banquet

takes on more formality than a “come as you are”party; an evening at home with

one other couple may be more informal than an evening with 10 other couples.

The greater the formality, the greater the chances that the communication behavior

will be less relaxed and more superficial, hesitant, and stylized.

Of importance, what we expect to see along the formal–informal continuum in

a particular setting matters. We expect to see less formal behavior and dress in

informal settings and more formal behavior and dress in formal settings. Trouble

can arise when these expectations go unmet. Consider the likely reactions of sun-

bathers at a beach to a group of men and women sitting on leather chairs and

94 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

discussing corporate strategy in their business suits. In Figure 4-2—dubbed the

“flip-flop flap”—expectations were violated, leading to negative reactions on the

part of some viewers. The problem was that several members of Northwestern

University’s championship lacrosse team wore flip-flops when they had their

photo taken with President Bush at the White House (“NU’s Lacrosse Team Sparks

Flip-Flop-Flap at White House,”2005). To some people, flip-flops were disrespectful

footwear in such a lofty setting.

PERCEPTIONS OF WARMTH

Environments that make us feel psychologically warm encourage us to linger, relax,

and feel comfortable. It may be some combination of the color of the drapes or walls,

paneling, carpeting, texture of the furniture, softness of the chairs, soundproofing, and

so on. Even the exterior of an environment can affect our anticipated feelings of com-

fort. Students viewed slides of 34 different medical facilities, and the expected quality

of care and degree of comfort varied with different types of buildings (Devlin, 2008).

Fast-food chains try to exhibit enough warmth in their decor to seem inviting

but enough coldness to encourage rapid turnover. Interestingly, environments that

make us feel psychologically warm may also make us feel physically warmer.

Students were asked to spend 2 hours studying or reading in a room with a neutral

decor, similar to that of a classroom. Then they were asked to read or study in a

room that resembled a walk-in meat cooler. Nearly all the students felt the second

room was cooler, even though the temperature was actually the same in both

FIGURE 4-2

Northwestern Women’s Lacrosse Team at White House.

AP Photo/The White House, David Bohrer

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 95

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

rooms. Then the meat cooler room was paneled, carpeted, and equipped with sub-

dued lighting and other appointments. Another group of students was asked to

read or study in each room. This time, the redesigned meat-cooler room was

judged to have a higher temperature than the classroom. Again, actual tempera-

tures were the same (Rohles, 1980).

PERCEPTIONS OF PRIVACY

Enclosed environments usually suggest greater privacy, particularly if they accom-

modate only a few people. If the possibility of other people’s entering and/or

overhearing our conversation is slight, even if we are outdoors, there is a greater

feeling of privacy. Personal items such as toilet articles, low or focused lighting,

high-density situations, partitions, noise, and other environmental factors can affect

perceptions of privacy (Buslig, 1999). With greater privacy, we will probably find

close speaking distances and more personal messages designed and adapted for the

specific other person rather than people in general.

PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILIARITY

When we meet a new person or encounter an unfamiliar environment, our responses

typically are cautious, deliberate, and conventional. Unfamiliarenvironmentsare

laden with rituals and norms we do not yet know, so we are hesitant to move too

quickly. We will probably go slowly until we can associate this unfamiliar environment

with one we know. One interpretation for the stereotyped structure of fast-food restau-

rants is that they allow us, in our mobile society, to readily find a familiar and predict-

able place that will guarantee minimal demands for active contact with strangers. In

unfamiliar environments, the most likely initial topic of conversation will be the envi-

ronment itself: Have you ever been here before? What is it like? Who comes here?

PERCEPTIONS OF CONSTRAINT

Part of our total reaction to our environment is based on our perception of

whether, and how easily, we can leave it. Some students feel confined in their own

homes during the school Christmas break. But consider the differences between this

2-week constraint and a permanent live-at-home arrangement. The intensity of

these perceptions of constraint is closely related to the space available to us as well

as the privacy of this space during the time we are in the environment. Some envir-

onments seem to be only temporarily confining, such as an automobile during a

long trip. Perceptions of confinement in other environments, such as prisons, space-

craft, or nursing homes, will likely seem more enduring.

PERCEPTIONS OF DISTANCE

Sometimes our responses within a given environment are influenced by how close

or far away we must conduct our communication with another. This may reflect

actual physical distance—an office on a different floor, a house in another part of

the city—or it may reflect psychological distance, with barriers clearly separating

people who are fairly close physically. You may be seated close to someone and

96 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

still not perceive it as a close environment: for example, interlocking chairs facing

the same direction in an airport. When the setting forces us into close quarters

with other people not well known to us, such as elevators or crowded buses, we

try to increase distance psychologically to reduce threatening feelings of intimacy.

We can do this through less eye contact, body tenseness and immobility, cold

silence, nervous laughter, jokes about the intimacy, and public conversation

directed at all present.

The perceptions just described represent only some of the dimensions along

which we can view communication settings. Generally, more intimate communi-

cation is associated with informal, unconstrained, private, familiar, close, and

warm environments. In everyday situations, however, these dimensions combine in

complex ways. The mixture of intimate and nonintimate factors can be seen in an

elevator if it is perceived as close, familiar, and temporarily confining but also pub-

lic, formal, and cold.

REACTING TO ENVIRONMENTS

Once these perceptions are made, how do they affect our reactions? Sometimes the

impact of the environment will be slight, but it has the potential to play a signifi-

cant role in affecting our behavior. In a study of 98 child-care classes for 3- and

4-year-olds, Maxwell (2007) concluded that perceptions of the physical environ-

ment were related to measures of the children’s cognitive and social competency,

especially for the 3-year-olds.

Mehrabian (1976) argued that we react emotionally to our surroundings.

These emotional reactions can be accounted for in terms of (1) how aroused the

environment makes us feel, (2) how pleasurable we feel, and (3) how dominant we

feel. Arousal refers to how active, stimulated, frenzied, or alert we are. Pleasure

refers to feelings of joy, satisfaction, and happiness. Dominance refers to feelings

of being in control, important, and free to act in a variety of ways.

Novel, surprising, and complex environments probably produce higher

arousal. Those people less able to screen out unwanted information from the envi-

ronment inevitably have to respond to more stimuli and, in turn, become more

aroused. Although we all probably respond as screeners and nonscreeners on occa-

sion, some people tend to respond habitually as one or the other. Nonscreeners are

less selective in what they respond to in any environment. They see, hear, smell,

and otherwise sense more stimuli. Screeners, in contrast, are selective in what they

respond to. They impose a hierarchy of importance on various components in a

complex situation. Nonscreeners not only become more aroused than screeners in

novel, changing, and sudden situations, they also remain aroused longer—even

after leaving the arousing environment. That is why nonscreeners are most

attracted to environments that are both arousing and pleasurable.

Introversion–extraversion is another personality variable that influences how

people respond to arousing environments. Research by Geen (1984) has shown

that introverts require less stimulation to reach their optimal level of physiological

arousal than do extraverts. This means that introverts could become overly aroused

in an environment that is comfortable for extraverts. Knowing this, introverts and

extraverts may choose some environments over others, avoiding those that will

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 97

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

not be arousing enough or too arousing for them. In line with this, Campbell and

Hawley (1982) found that introverted students preferred quiet, socially isolated

settings when studying, whereas extraverts sought noisier settings where they

could socialize with others.

Ambient aroma is an environmental factor that influences how people behave

in an environment. Research by Baron (1997) has shown that pleasant odors

increase our willingness to help members of the same sex. The increased helpful-

ness seems to be due to the pleasant odors making people feel better. It also

appears that clean scents increase people’s willingness to be charitable (Liljenquist,

Zhong, & Galinsky, 2010). Importantly, these environmental effects are likely to

be nonconscious in nature, suggesting that our behavior could, at times, be under

the influence of the odors wafting through or lingering in the spaces we pass

through.

PERCEPTIONS OF TIME

Time is also a part of the communicative environment. At first, it may seem strange

to include something as seemingly intangible as time in the same environmental

package as chairs, walls, noise, or even weather conditions. However, the human

brain may be wired to encode time and place information after an event that is

tragic or of momentous importance. Do you have a vivid memory of the events

directly surrounding 9/11? What were you doing before, during, and after that

news broke? Chances are that that information is burned into your memory, some-

thing psychologists refer to as a flashbulb memory. In the United States, people

treat time as something tangible, a commodity that can be divided up, saved,

spent, and made. Furthermore, we often project temporal qualities onto objects

within our environment: for example, a chair that looks like it has been there for-

ever or an elevator that “never seems to be on time.”

Time is important to us. It governs when we eat and sleep, it often determines

how much we get paid at work, and it sets limits on how much material students

can learn in a given class period. Time plays a key role in social interaction as

well. It influences our perceptions of people: for example, responsible people are

on time, boring people talk too long, or a good romantic partner gives us some

time to ourselves (Leonard, 1978; Werner & Baxter, 1994). A course in time man-

agement is a staple for anyone expecting to climb the corporate ladder in U.S.

organizations. Time plays such an important role in our lives that we often carry

the date and time around with us on our wrist or on our cell phones. Most cars

have clocks, and some of them even have devices for computing the time it will take

to drive from one location to another. We are very much aware of the stress time can

create in our lives. We think of a vacation as a retreat to a place where time matters

less. Ironically, vacations are usually thought of as a set period of time.

Time is perceived very differently in other cultures (Hall, 1959). These varying

orientations to time are often a central factor in misunderstandings among mem-

bers of different cultures. Psychology professor Robert Levine gives this account of

his teaching experience in Brazil:

As I left home for my first day of class, I asked someone the time. It was 9:05 a.m.,

which allowed me time to relax and look around the campus before my 10 o’clock

98 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

lecture. After what I judged to be half an hour, I glanced at the clock I was passing.

It said 10:20! In a panic, I broke for the classroom, followed by gentle calls of

“Hola, professor”and “Tudo bem, professor?”from unhurried students, many of

whom, I later realized, were my own. I arrived breathless to find an empty room.

Frantically, I asked a passerby the time. “Nine forty-five”was the answer. No,

that couldn’tbe.Iaskedsomeoneelse.“Nine fifty-five.”Another said: “Exactly

9:43.”The clock in a nearby office read 3:15. I had learned my first lesson about

Brazilians: Their timepieces are consistently inaccurate. And nobody minds. My class

was scheduled from 10 until noon. Many students came late, some very late …

none seemed terribly concerned about lateness…. The real surprise came at noon …

only a few students left immediately. Others drifted out during the next fifteen

minutes, and some continued asking me questions long after that. (Levine & Wolff,

1985, p. 30)

Biologically, our bodies seem to be programmed so that “internal clocks”regulate

our physical, emotional, and intellectual functioning as well as our sense of time

(Luce, 1971; Meissner & Wittmann, 2011). However, we can experience distor-

tions in the perception of time; some of which are influenced by events, whereas

others by personality variables.

We all know that “a watched pot doesn’t boil”and that the waiting room at a

physician’s office is a fitting description. Examples of events that seem to slow time

down—that is, the perceived duration is longer than the actual duration—include

scary ones (e.g., skydiving for novices) and seeing angry or fearful faces compared

to neutral faces (Campbell & Bryant, 2007; Effron, Niedenthal, Gil, & Droit-Volet,

2006; Gil & Droit-Volet, 2011). On the other hand, highly exciting events can

make time fly (Campbell & Bryant, 2007).

Individual differences in the perception of time have been linked to neurolog-

ical and psychological differences (Westfall, Jasper, & Zelmanova, 2010;

Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Regarding the latter, Zimbardo and Boyd (1999)

believe in individual differences in people’s attitudes toward time, something

which can influence their decisions and judgments. These include the past-

negative type (you view your past negatively, and your past still upsets you), the

past-positive type (you have a nostalgic view of your past), the present-hedonistic

type (you think more about partaking in pleasures of the present than conse-

quences in the future), the present-fatalistic type (you feel stuck in the present

and unable to change your future), and the future-focused type (you are focused

on accomplishing goals important to your future). These orientations may repre-

sent a long-term style or may be subject to change; for example, a present-

hedonistic type, who “lives for the moment”at one point in his or her life,

might later adapt to a future-focused style that involves evaluating today’s

“moments”in terms of the long-range picture (Gonzalez & Zimbardo, 1985).

We devote the remainder of this chapter to the characteristics of environ-

ments that form the bases of the perceptions just outlined: perceptions of our

surroundings and perceptions of time. Each environment has three major

components:

1. The natural environment—geography, location, atmospheric conditions

2. The presence or absence of other people

3. The architectural design and movable objects

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 99

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Some of us live in densely populated urban areas, some in smaller towns, some in

suburban areas on the outskirts of these cities and towns, and others in rural

areas. Within these broad areas, we find other environmental features that affect

the nature of human interaction and health: for example, apartment complexes,

neighborhoods, high-rise buildings, and urban settings with forested areas. The

places we live, play, and work are bound to have an impact on our behavior.

The number of people we communicate with can influence our interaction style,

but perhaps more important is the number of different people for whom we have

to adapt our messages. Some environments are very homogeneous and provide

inhabitants with fewer experiences and fewer examples of diverse styles, behavior,

and values. The pace of life and the time devoted to developing social and personal

relationships may also vary as a function of where we live. In slums or ghettos in

urban areas, we often find a social climate that encourages or fosters unconven-

tional and deviant behavior or at least tolerates it. Thus, slum areas show a high

incidence of juvenile delinquency, prostitution, alcohol and drug addiction, physical

and mental disability, and crimes of violence (Krupat, 1985).

The natural environment that surrounds us on a day-to-day basis also comes

with a host of weather-related phenomena. For instance, behavioral scientists have

been interested in the effects of barometric pressure: High or rising barometric

pressure has been associated with feelings of good health; low or falling barometric

pressure is more likely to be linked to feelings of pain or depression. Optimum stu-

dent behavior and performance have been observed when the barometer was high

or rising and on cool days with little wind and precipitation. Increase in positive

air ions also seems to increase people’s irritability and tension.

The changing seasons seem to have an impact on our behavior and mental

health, too. Even in areas of the United States with minimal seasonal variations

in temperature, national routines associated with changing seasons are still

followed: for example, taking summer vacations and starting school in the fall.

Some of the ways in which our behavior varies with the seasons include the

following:

1. Suicide rates and admissions to public mental hospitals rise dramatically in the

spring and peak in the summer.

2. College students tend to break up with their dating partners at the beginnings

and endings of semesters (May/June, August/September, or December/

January).

3. During the summer, people tend to see their friends more often.

4. During the summer, crimes of assault and rape increase.

5. From July to November, people tend to report less happiness but more activity

and less boredom.

6. U.S. females born during the fall are more likely to have symptoms related to

eating disorders than females born during the other seasons (Javaras, Austin, &

Field, 2011).

7. Although seasonal affective disorder (we describe this later in the chapter) can

be triggered in spring, the onset is more likely to be during late fall and early

winter.

100 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

BROKEN WINDOWS.BROKEN RULES?

Imagine entering an urban neighborhood with

few people around. You pass by numerous build-

ings that have been vandalized (e.g., broken

windows, graffiti on the outside walls, and litter

all around). Do these represent clues to the ex-

isting norms of conduct operating in that envi-

ronment? Do you think that the buildings are not

monitored and that getting caught for littering or

damaging property further is very unlikely?

Wilson and Kelling (1982) and others

(Kelling & Coles, 1996) proposed the so-called

broken windows theory to account for how the

appearance and upkeep of an environment is

one signal of the social norms there, the extent

to which the setting is monitored, and whether

criminal behavior occurs in that area. These,

in turn, are relevant to the occurrence and

prevention of some criminal activity.

In principle, one way to prevent petty

criminal activity is to repair damaged property

and not let trash accumulate because this

lets would-be vandals know that the area is

monitored and that vandalism will be detected

and dealt with. On the other hand, the presence

of litter, broken windows, and other signs of

vandalism might not deter some individuals from engaging in similar petty or even serious criminal activity in

the neighborhood. Furthermore, additional criminal activity can lead to a further deterioration of the appear-

ance of the area, only making matters worse. For example, law-abiding citizens may decide to flee the area.

The broken windows theory has received some empirical support, but it has also been criticized. Survey

research has shown that aspects of the theory have utility in explaining residents’concern about neighbor-

hood safety as well as students’perceptions of social disorder in their school (Pitner, Yu, & Brown, 2012;

Plank, Bradshaw, & Young, 2009). Experimental work has revealed that littering, trespassing, and stealing

are greater when there are signs that people are violating other rules; littering was greater, for example, when

participants saw graffiti on a wall marked with a “no graffiti sign”than when that same wall had no graffiti

on it (Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2008). However, the research of Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno (1991)

suggests that it might be important for us to see another person behave in a way that is consistent with the

existing norms in the environment. They found that participants were more likely to litter in a messy garage

than a clean garage when they had first seen another person litter in that garage. Stated differently, the litterer

brought the norm (“It’s okay to litter”) to participants’awareness when they were in the messy garage.

As a theory, broken windows has been criticized on a number of fronts. First and foremost, it cannot

explain the causes of serious criminal activity. Of course, most of the people who live in blighted urban

areas do not turn to a life of violent crime. Moreover, a criminal may be little concerned with the upkeep

of a street; a burglar, for instance, may case a luxury home in an exclusive neighborhood and ignore a

modest home in a run-down neighborhood because the potential payoffs are greater with the former.

Jeff Dalton/Photos.com

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 101

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

We recognize that seasons come and go gradually along with the weather that

typically accompanies them—falling leaves eventually give way to falling snow.

However, within seasons, the weather can change suddenly and drastically: for

example, a sunny spring day can be followed by violent storm activity that night,

with tornadoes touching down and ripping apart neighborhoods. Natural disasters

can inflict great psychological damage on those who have experienced them, some-

times leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (Simpson, Weissbecker, & Sephton,

2011).

Temperature and the way it affects human responses is the climatic factor that

has received the most scientific attention—specifically, the extent to which hot tem-

peratures increase aggressive motivation and aggressive behavior.

Lengthy periods of extreme heat are often associated with discomfort,

irritability, reduced work output, and unfavorable evaluations of strangers. In

one study, hot temperatures increased aggressive horn-honking for drivers

without air-conditioning (Kenrick & MacFarlane, 1986). Vrij, van der Steen,

and Koppelaar (1994) studied the reactions of police officers to a simulated

burglary in which the temperature varied from comfortably cool to hot. When

the temperature was hot, officers reported more aggressive and threatening

impressions of the suspect and were more likely to draw their weapon. As

Anderson (2001) noted, uncomfortably warm temperatures seem to increase the

likelihood that ambiguous social interactions will be viewed as aggressive.

A simple question such as “Is it really necessary that I do that?”may be taken

as an aggressive challenge to personal authority that demands some form of

retaliation.

An analysis of riots in India over a 22-year period found that most took place

during the months when the temperature was between 80 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit

(Berke & Wilson, 1951). Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil

Disorders (1968) on riots in the United States said that hot summer nights added to

an already explosive situation that eventually resulted in widespread rioting in

ghetto areas: “In most instances, the temperature during the day on which the vio-

lence erupted was quite high”(p. 71; also see Goranson & King, 1970). An analysis

of 102 riots in the United States between 1967 and 1971 concluded that the most

likely temperature-riot sequence was one in which the temperature rose to between

81 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit and remained within that range for about 7 days

preceding the riot. Rotton and Cohn (2003) conducted two studies, each covering

38 years or more, and found annual temperatures associated with various forms of

criminal behavior such as assaults, rapes, robberies, burglaries, and larceny—but not

murder.

Without any way to relieve the effects of high temperatures, criminal behavior

is likely to decrease when extremely high temperatures persist. Very high tempera-

tures lead people to seek ways to relieve their discomfort rather than engage in

criminal activity. Riots were less likely to occur as temperatures climbed above

90 degrees Fahrenheit (Baron & Ransberger, 1978; Carlsmith & Anderson, 1979).

As Figure 4-3 indicates, assaults in climate-controlled settings tend to increase

when temperatures are extremely high but decrease in outdoor situations without

climate controls (Rotton & Cohn, 2004).

102 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

You might be wondering why heat would lead to more aggression. According

to Leonard Berkowitz (1989), the likely culprit is negative feelings. In short, high

temperatures can produce negative feelings, and it is these feelings that can trigger

anger and hostile thoughts and behaviors in people. This occurs because such

thoughts and behaviors are linked to it in an associated network in memory. This

model implies that other environmental stressors that arouse negative feelings in

people—excessive noise, traffic jams, pollution, and so on—might also lead to

more aggression under the right circumstance.

Obviously, the relationship between temperature, negative affect, and aggres-

sion is not simple. Probably a number of factors interact with the temperature to

increase the chance of aggression: prior provocation; the presence of aggressive

models; and negative affect experienced from sources other than temperature, such

as poverty and unemployment, perceived ability to leave the environment, and the

availability of sources to relieve any adverse effects of temperature. A thorough

review of the literature, however, concludes the following:

Clearly, hot temperatures produce increases in aggressive motives and tendencies.

Hotter regions of the world yield more aggression; this is especially apparent when

analyses are done within countries. Hotter years, quarters of years, seasons,

months, and days all yield relatively more aggressive behaviors such as murders,

rapes, assaults, riots, and wife beatings, among others. Finally, those concomitant

temperature-aggression studies done in the field also yielded clear evidence that

uncomfortably hot temperatures produce increases in aggressive motives and beha-

viors. (Anderson, 1989, p. 93)

Note, however, that sometimes unpleasant environmental factors, such as heat

or noise, can increase attraction for others. In such cases, the aversive stimulus may

Temperature

15

1.5

2.0

2.5

Aggravated Assault (Mean)

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 100>

Outside

Inside

FIGURE 4-3

Aggravated assault as a function of temperature and climate control.

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 103

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

function as something both people have in common (Kenrick & Johnson, 1979;

Schneider, Lesko, & Garrett, 1980). The extent to which heat and other environ-

mental variables increase or decrease attraction to others depends on how these

interact with many other factors, such as interactants’personalities and the pres-

ence or absence of simultaneously occurring rewarding stimuli.

The effects of the moon and sunspots on human behavior have also been stud-

ied scientifically. Psychiatrist Arnold Lieber (1978) reasoned that human beings,

like the earth, are subject to gravitational forces created by different positions of

the moon. (Human beings, like the planet itself, are about 80 percent water and

20 percent solids.) He plotted the number of murders in relation to the position of

the moon and concluded a strong relationship between the two. But considerable

skepticism exists regarding Lieber’s theory and similar work because research of

this type shows how two things vary together, not that a particular moon position

actually causes certain behaviors. Several other factors likely are interacting and

affecting the two. Two separate analyses of over 37 studies that purportedly linked

moon positions and the frequency of psychiatric hospital admissions, suicides,

homicides, traffic accidents, and changes in the stock market concluded that a spu-

rious relationship exists between moon phases and these behaviors (Campbell &

Beets, 1978; Rotton & Kelly, 1985). Furthermore, Schafer, Varano, Jarvis, and

Cancino (2010) did not find a relationship between lunar cycles and reported

criminal conduct in a more recent study on this topic.

Aside from the influence of high temperatures on aggressive tendencies, we do

not have a lot of reliable and valid information on how the natural environment

affects our communication behavior. It seems reasonable to believe that various

aspects of the natural environment will have an influence, but the exact nature

and degree of this influence is still unknown. Most people seem to believe the

weather has less impact on their own behavior than it does on others’behavior,

that it has less impact on behavior than it does on emotional states, and that it

does not have more impact on negative states than on positive ones (Jorgenson,

1981). Kraut and Johnston (1979) found that people walking on the sidewalk

smiled more when the weather was sunny and pleasant than when it was rainy

and overcast. This difference was much less significant than the effect of being

with others; people smiled much more when in an interaction than when alone.

Thus, compared to more social factors, climate and other environmental variables

may have weak influences on our behavior.

OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 5 examines the reactions of people to overpopulated environments. For

now, we point out that people can be perceived as part of the environment and do

have an effect on the behavior of others. These people may be perceived as active

or passive participants, depending on the degree to which they are perceived as

involved in conversations, either speaking or listening. In many situations, these

people are seen as active, especially if they are able to overhear what is being said.

In some situations, we grant another person or persons the dubious status of

nonperson and behave accordingly. This may occur in high-density situations, but

104 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

it is also common with just one other person. Cab drivers, janitors, and children

achieve nonperson status with regularity. The presence of nonpersons, of course,

allows the uninhibited flow of interaction because as far as the active participants

are concerned, they themselves are the only human interactants present. Parents

sometimes talk to others about personal aspects of their child while the child is

playing nearby. For interactants, the child is perceived as “not there.”Any relevant

verbal or nonverbal responses on the part of the nonperson that are picked up by

interactants immediately strip the person of the nonperson role.

Research shows that the home team was usually the winner in sporting events

(Jamieson, 2010). One study found this to be true 53 percent of the time in profes-

sional baseball, 58 percent in professional football, 60 percent in college football,

67 percent in professional basketball, and 64 percent in professional hockey. Possi-

ble reasons are the home team’s familiarity with the home field or the visiting

team’s travel fatigue. However, an important factor contributing to the home

team’s victories seems to be the spectators, who provide psychological support

that improves performance. In contrast, unfriendly home crowds may increase

performance errors (Schwartz & Barsky, 1977; Thirer & Rampey, 1979). Some

analyses of home team performances before supportive fans have suggested a

tendency for the home team to choke in championship games, but some studies

have not shown this to be true for baseball or basketball (Schlenker, Phillips,

Boniecki, & Schlenker, 1995).

The ways in which groups influence individual performance are too numerous

and too large a topic to discuss here. Two examples illustrate the subtlety of some

of these effects:

1. In one of social psychology’s first experiments, boys wound line on fishing

reels faster when others were present performing the same activity, even

though there was no competition and no emphasis on speed. Many studies

have since found this social facilitation effect whereby performance—on simple

and well-learned tasks, at least—is enhanced by the mere presence of others.

2. If people feel others are working with them on a joint task, they often slack off

without realizing it. This social loafing is strongest when people feel their own

contributions cannot be tallied or evaluated (Harkins & Szymanski, 1987).

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MOVABLE OBJECTS

Hall (1966) labeled the architecture and objects in our environment as either fixed

feature space or semifixed feature space. Fixed feature space refers to space orga-

nized by unmoving boundaries, such as in rooms of houses; semifixed feature

space refers to the arrangement of movable objects, such as tables or chairs. Both

can have a strong impact on our communication behavior.

At one time in U.S. history, banks were deliberately designed to project an

image of strength and security. The design frequently featured large marble pillars,

an abundance of metal bars and doors, uncovered floors, and bare walls. This style

generally projected a cold, impersonal image to visitors, yet oddly enough, it also

gave customers some measure of comfort because in such a place their money

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 105

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

would likely be safe. Later, bankers perceived the need to change their environ-

ment, to create a friendly, warm, homey place where people would enjoy sitting

down and discussing their financial needs and problems. Bank interiors began to

change. Carpeting was added, wood replaced metal, cushioned chairs were added,

and potted plants and art were brought in for additional warmth. This is only one

example of the recognition that many times, the interior in which interaction

occurs can significantly influence the nature of the interaction. Some churches

have tried to make their environments more inviting by having greeters, Power-

Point presentations, musicians who sing and play guitars, and the like. Nightclub

owners and restaurateurs have long been aware that dim lighting and sound-

absorbing surfaces—such as carpets, drapes, and padded ceilings—provide greater

intimacy and cause patrons to linger longer than they would in an interior with

high illumination and no soundproofing. And lastly, attention has been paid to

how gamblers are influenced by the design and decor features of casinos (Finlay,

Marmurek, Kanetkar, & Londerville, 2010).

The earliest studies to focus on the influence of interior decoration on human

responses were conducted by Maslow and Mintz (1956) and Mintz (1956). They

selected three rooms for study: One was an “ugly”room, designed to give the

impression of a janitor’s storeroom in disheveled condition; one was a “beautiful”

room, complete with attractive appointments that included carpeting and drapes;

and one was an “average”room—a professor’s office. People sitting in these

rooms were asked to rate a series of negative print photographs (to control for

color, shading, etc.) of faces. The experimenters tried to keep all factors—time of

day, odor, noise, type of seating, and experimenter—constant from room to room,

so results could be attributed to the type of room.

Results showed that people in the beautiful room gave significantly higher rat-

ings on “energy”and “well-being”to the faces than did participants in the ugly

room. Experimenters and subjects alike engaged in various escape behaviors to

avoid the ugly room, which was variously described as producing monotony,

fatigue, headache, discontent, sleep, irritability, and hostility. The beautiful

room, however, produced feelings of pleasure, comfort, enjoyment, importance,

energy, and a desire to continue the activity. In this instance, we have a well-controlled

study that offers some evidence of the impact of visual-aesthetic surroundings on the

nature of human interaction. Similar studies found that students do better on tests,

rate teachers higher, and solve problems more effectively in beautiful rooms than in

ugly ones (Campbell, 1979; Wollin & Montagre, 1981).

Because at least one study did not find mood or evaluations of others to

change with drastic changes in appointments and decor (Kasmar, Griffin, &

Mauritzen, 1968), we are reminded that the impact of the environment is only

one source of influence on our perceptions. Sometimes it is a powerful force, but

sometimes the close relationship between the two parties, an understanding of or

tolerance for clutter, positive behavior on the part of the other person, and other

factors offset any negative effects emanating from an ugly environment.

Sometimes we get very definite person- or couple-related messages from home

environments (see Figure 4-4). The designation of places in the home for certain

activities and not for others, the symbolism attached to various objects in the

home, and ways of decorating the home may tell us a lot about the nature of a

106 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

couple’s relationship (Altman, Brown, Staples, & Werner, 1992). Sometimes the

way a home is decorated reveals whether the inhabitants decorated their home for

themselves, for others, for conformity, for comfort, and so on (Sandalla, 1987). It

is easier to judge aspects of other people’s personalities when they feel that their

home decor expresses their personality (Hâta, 2004).

Lohmann, Arriaga, and Goodfriend (2003) were able to use decorative objects

in a home to determine the closeness of the inhabitants’relationship. They asked

couples who were either married or living together in a romantic relationship to

identify objects in their homes they most wanted visitors to notice and to specify

their favorite objects. Each object was also identified as either individually acquired

or jointly acquired. Couples completed questionnaires that measured their relation-

ship commitment and closeness. The couples who had greater commitment and

closer relationships were also couples who had a higher proportion of jointly

acquired objects that they wanted visitors to notice and more jointly acquired

favorite objects.

Researchers have explored individual differences in how people decorate their

actual (e.g., bedrooms, offices) or virtual worlds (Graham, Sandy, & Gosling,

2011). For example, Gosling (2008), Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and Morris (2002),

and Gosling, Gaddis, and Vazire (2008) were interested in whether personality

characteristics could accurately be predicted from a person’s office or bedroom.

FIGURE 4-4

Environmental Perception Test: (a) Describe the people who live here. (b) Tell why you would or

would not like to meet the people who live here. (c) How much communication takes place here?

(d) What topics are most likely discussed? (e) Which dimensions listed on pp. 94–97 influenced

your perceptions the most? (f) Compare your answers with others.

Eric Vega/iStockphoto.com

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 107

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Observers who experienced various offices and bedrooms firsthand indicated the

extent to which the environment they saw reflected the person’s extraversion,

agreeableness, emotional stability, openness to experience, and conscientiousness.

The personality profile of the people who worked in the offices and slept in the

bedrooms was obtained from their own responses to personality measures. These

types of environments seem to have enough signals associated with conscientious-

ness and openness to experience to enable observers to effectively judge inhabitants

with those characteristics (e.g., a variety of reading material was linked to openness

to experiences; being neat was linked to conscientiousness), but observers were not

as successful in judging other personality characteristics. We may not always be

accurate in judging another person’s personality characteristics from the way they

construct their environment, but that does not stop us from making such judg-

ments. People who judged the personality of characters in a story when the quality

of their housekeeping was varied judged the housekeepers with a dirty environment

as less agreeable, less conscientious, less intelligent, and less feminine but more

open and more neurotic than the clean housekeepers. Whether the housekeeper

was male or female did not affect the judgments (Harris & Sachau, 2005).

The way people decorate their rooms may also forecast future behavior. In one

study, researchers took photographs of 83 first-year students’rooms. When the

photographs of the rooms of students who had dropped out of school a year and

a half later were analyzed, it was noted that the dropouts had more decorations

reflecting high school and home and fewer related to the university community.

Dropouts also seemed to have fewer ways to protect their privacy; their favorite

way to combat unwanted noise was to override it with more noise of their own

(Vinsel, Brown, Altman, & Foss, 1980).

COLOR

Researchers have been investigating how color affects our behavior, from how food

tastes to us to how attractive we find others (Elliot & Niesta, 2008; Harrar,

Piqueras-Fiszman, & Spence, 2011). First off, people believe that colors can affect

behavior. In fact, some believe “prisoner mischief”will vary as a function of the

colors surrounding prisoners. For example, the walls of the San Diego city jail

were at one time reportedly painted pink, baby blue, and peach on the assumption

that pastel colors would have a calming effect on the inmates. In Salem, Oregon, the

cell bars of Oregon’s correctional institution were painted soft greens, blues, and

buffs; some cell doors were painted bright yellow, orange, green, and blue. In addi-

tion, the superintendent of the institution said the color schemes would be continu-

ally changed to keep it “an exciting place to work and live in.”Initial studies of

people exposed to environments painted Baker-Miller pink found decreasing heart

rates, pulse, and respiration. Subsequent studies in adult and juvenile correctional

facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and controlled laboratory studies with undergraduate

students supported the belief that this pink color aided in suppressing violent

and aggressive behaviors (Pelligrini & Schauss, 1980; Schauss, 1985). In 2005, the

sheriff of Mason County, Texas, painted the bars and walls of his five-inmate jail

pink and issued pink sheets, pink slippers, and pink jumpsuits to his prisoners. He

claims it has led to a 70 percent decrease in repeated offenses (Phinney, 2006).

108 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

But not all experiences with pink have been so positive. The county jail in San

Jose, California, reportedly painted two holding cells shocking pink in the belief

that prisoner hostility would be reduced. Prisoners seemed less hostile for about

15 minutes, but soon the hostility reached a peak; after 3 hours, some prisoners

were tearing the paint off the wall. This result is consistent with the research of

Smith, Bell, and Fusco (1986) who found pink to be arousing rather than weaken-

ing. In fact, any color that is highly saturated and bright is likely to be more arousing

and will garner more attention than paler colors (Camgoz, Yener, & Guvenc, 2004;

Garber & Hyatt, 2003). When prisoners are allowed to paint their cells with colors

they choose, it may have an aggression-reducing effect, but the effect may have

more to do with the prisoner’s control over the choice of colors than the colors

themselves. Nevertheless, the preceding reports show how various institutions have

tried, with mixed results, to apply the findings from color research to affect the

nature of human interaction in certain environments.

Colors are also believed to influence student learning. Colors that will facili-

tate, or at least not impede, learning are always a concern during classroom

construction. In Munich, Germany, a group of researchers studied the impact of

colors on mental growth and social relations (“Blue Is Beautiful,”1973). Children

tested in rooms they thought were beautiful scored about 12 points higher on an

IQ test than those tested in rooms they thought were ugly. Blue, yellow, yellow-

green, and orange were considered beautiful; white, black, and brown were consid-

ered ugly. The beautifully colored rooms also seemed to stimulate alertness and

creativity. In the orange room, psychologists found that positive social reactions,

such as friendly words and smiles, increased 53 percent, whereas negative reac-

tions, such as irritability and hostility, decreased 12 percent.

Ball’s (1965) summary of the color research prior to 1965 found what others

have found since then: that people associate serenity and calm with the colors blue

and green, and that red and orange are perceived to be arousing and stimulating.

The research of Wexner (1954) and Murray and Deabler (1957) are representative

of this tradition. Wexner (see Table 4-1) presented 8 colors and 11 mood-tones to

94 research participants. The results show that a single color is significantly related

to some mood-tones; for others, two or more colors may be associated.

It is difficult to interpret this research. First, research participants were asked to

judge colors outside of any context, even though the colors we respond to in daily

life are perceived within a particular context. Separating color from the objects and

forms that give it shape, the surrounding colors, and other contextual features may

elicit some learned stereotypes about the relationship of mood and color, but each

stereotype may or may not be relevant when given a context. Pink may be your

favorite color, but you may still dislike pink hair.

Hines (1996) found that residents of four American cities believed red meant

danger, warmth, love, strength, and safety, but when these same people were

asked to think about red in terms of products, they said red meant Coca-Cola.

Because the color red is associated with male dominance and testosterone levels in

some nonhuman animals, Hill and Barton (2005) wondered whether the wearing

of red would play a role in winning sporting contests. In the 2004 Olympic

games, contestants in four combat sports—tae kwon do, boxing, Greco-Roman

wrestling, and freestyle wrestling—were randomly assigned red or blue outfits. In

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 109

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

all four competitions, the contestants wearing red won significantly more fights.

The researchers later compared the performances of five soccer teams that varied

the color of their uniforms and found that they won significantly more games

when wearing red. The researchers caution, however, that wearing red may only

be a favorable factor in winning when the combatants are reasonably matched in

skill: Wearing red will not overcome a lack of talent.

Studies suggest that the color red enhances the attractiveness of members of the

other sex. In one experiment, young men saw the same black-and-white photo of a

woman in one of two conditions: in either a red background or a white back-

ground. Men’s ratings of the woman’s attractiveness were higher when she was

featured in the red as opposed to the white background (Elliot & Niesta, 2008).

Similarly, Elliot et al. (2010) found that young women thought a man was more

attractive when he was shown on a red background compared to a white one.

A series of studies on the color of uniforms worn by football and hockey

players pinpointed the complex ways in which colors may affect behavior. Frank

and Gilovich (1988) began by demonstrating that students rated black uniforms as

connoting meanness and aggression more than other colors. Then they examined

statistics from actual professional games and found that football and hockey

teams wearing black uniforms were penalized more than teams wearing other col-

ors. And when a team changed its color to black from some other color, it began

TABLE 4-1 COLORS ASSOCIATED WITH MOODS

Mood-Tone Color Number of Times Chosen

Exciting/stimulating Red 61

Secure/comfortable Blue 41

Distressed/disturbed/upset Orange 34

Tender/soothing Blue 41

Protective/defending Red 21

Brown 17

Blue 15

Black 15

Purple 14

Despondent/dejected/unhappy/melancholy Black 25

Brown 25

Calm/peaceful/serene Blue 38

Green 31

Dignified/stately Purple 45

Cheerful/jovial/joyful Yellow 40

Defiant/contrary/hostile Red 23

Orange 21

Black 18

Powerful/strong/masterful Black 48

110 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

getting more penalties! The researchers then asked whether the effect was caused

by the players themselves—maybe they acted meaner and rougher wearing black—

or by the stereotyped perceptions of referees. The researchers made experimental

films in which they varied the uniforms of players engaging in identical moves and

then showed these to subjects acting as referees. These referees did find more

instances of penalizable behavior among those suited in black, even though there

actually were no differences. However, when the researchers put black uniforms

on students, they found evidence that wearing a black uniform produced more

aggressive behavior in the wearer. More recent evidence, however, has called this

effect into question. Caldwell and Burger (2011) did not find that hockey teams

showed more aggression when the players wore a black or red jersey as opposed

to their normal jersey color.

We cannot make any conclusive judgments about the impact of color on

human interaction from the research to date, but common sense tells us that colors

in our environment will affect the way we respond: We simply do not know how

or how much. What we do know is that research in this area needs to continue,

and that its scope must be broadened to new interaction environments. For

instance, because many people visit Web sites on a daily basis, researchers should

examine how color in those Web sites impacts visitors both within and across vari-

ous cultures (e.g., Cyr, Head, & Larios, 2010).

SOUND

Types of sounds and their intensity also seem to affect our interpersonal behavior,

task performance, and health. We may have very different reactions to the drone of

several people’s voices, the overpowering sound of a nearby jackhammer, or the

soothing or stimulating sounds of music.

Most of us are aware of how music can affect our moods, and our selection

of music may be designed to match or even change our moods. Depressing music

can add to the intensity of an already gloomy mood; uplifting music can enhance

a joyful feeling. Beginning with ideas like this, Honeycutt and Eidenmuller (2001)

conducted an exploratory study in which they asked couples to work at resolving

a source of conflict in their relationship while background music was playing.

Some couples experienced music rated as more positive and uplifting, and others

experienced negative or dreary music. The results of this study suggest not only

that the type of music can affect the verbal and nonverbal behavior of interactants

(e.g., agitating music was more likely to be linked to arguments), but the intensity

of the music can affect the intensity of the interaction. In a related study, uplifting

or annoying music was played for users of a university gym. Following their work-

out, they were asked to sign up for a helping task that did not involve much effort

or commitment or one that did. People exposed to both types of music signed up

for the easy task, but significantly more people who heard the uplifting music signed

up to help with the more difficult task (North, Tarrant, & Hargreaves, 2004).

Music can also affect consumer behavior. At one British restaurant, diners were

exposed to classical, pop, or no music for 18 evenings. When dining to the sound

of classical music, people spent significantly more money (North, Shilcock, &

Hargreaves, 2003). Obviously, different types of music are suitable for different

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 111

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

environments, and the music that is most effective for an environment is music that

is compatible with perceptions of other environmental features. Scientists at the

University of Leicester in England displayed four French and four German wines in

a local supermarket. The wines from the two countries were similar in price, sweet-

ness, and dryness. For 2 weeks, a tape deck on a nearby shelf alternated each day

with either French accordion music or German beer-hall music. Placement of the

wine on the shelves was alternated midway through the experiment. Researchers

found that sales were clearly linked to the type of music being played: When French

music was played, French wines outsold German wines, but when German music

was played, German wines outsold French wines. Only about 7 percent of those

purchasing wines were willing to acknowledge that the music may have influenced

their decision (North, Hargreaves, & McKendrick, 1997).

Concern has grown in the general public about the effects of music on young

people’s behavior. It is important to remember that the music most young adults

listen to (pop, rap, rock and roll, soul, country, etc.) contains lyrics. Teasing apart

the impact of the music versus the lyrics is thus important. For example, it appears

that violent lyrics contribute to aggressive thoughts and behaviors, prosocial lyrics

contribute to helping behavior, and romantic lyrics contribute to romance-related

behavior (namely, women’s initial openness to having phone contact with a male)

(Anderson, Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003; Greitemeyer, 2009; Guéguen, Jacob, &

Lamy, 2010; Mast & McAndrew, 2011). More important, it seems that it is the

lyrics and not the music per se that is responsible for the increase in aggressive

thoughts and behavior. Here again, we see that co-occurring verbal cues must be

taken into consideration when we evaluate the impact of a nonverbal cue, such as

music. We also should not ignore individual differences. Huang and Shih (2011),

for instance, found that music negatively affected workers’concentration when the

music was either strongly liked or disliked by the worker.

Szalma and Hancock’s (2011) review revealed that noise negatively impacts

performance, including communication that is both oral and written. However,

they noted that the extent to which noise hurts performance depends on a variety

of factors, including noise intensity, whether the noise is intermittent or continuous,

the type of noise, noise duration, and the type of task being done under noisy

conditions. As an illustration of some of these factors, Glass and Singer (1973) con-

ducted a series of studies on the impact of noise on performance. People were

asked to perform a variety of tasks varying in complexity while noises were manip-

ulated by the experimenters. Noise levels were varied: Some noise followed a

predictable pattern, and some did not. Various noise sources were tested, including

typewriters, machinery, and people speaking a foreign language. Although noise

alone did not seem to have a substantial effect on performance, deterioration was

observed when noise interacted with other factors; for instance, performance

decreased when the workload was high and the noise was uncontrollable and

unpredictable. Other factors that determine whether noise is a problem or a

pleasure include the type of noise—for example, music versus people talking—the

volume, the length of time it lasts, and whether the listener is accustomed to it or

not. Obviously, some individuals are more influenced by noise than others. Noise-

sensitive incoming college students perceived more noise than other students, and

these perceptions increased after 7 months into the school year. The noise-sensitive

112 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

students also received lower grades, felt less secure in their social interactions, and

had a greater desire for privacy than did their peers who were less sensitive to noise

(Weinstein, 1978).

Noise can also have short- and long-term effects on learning, motivation,

behavior, and health. Ryan and Mendel (2010) reported that the noise levels sur-

rounding physical education settings (e.g., gymnasium) are too high for Florida

school-aged children (elementary, middle, and high school), which could be detri-

mental to their learning. Jahncke, Hygge, Halin, Green, and Dimberg (2011)

noted that participants were less motivated and felt more tired when working in an

open-plan office space that had high- versus low-noise conditions. The distraction

caused by noise may be key to understanding the short-term effects of noise

on behavior, including increased alcohol consumption (Stafford, Fernandes, &

Agobiani, 2012). If negative feelings from hot temperatures can lead to aggression

under the right circumstances, then noise, which also can produce negative feelings

in people, should lead to aggression at times, too. This is indeed the case (Geen &

McCown, 1984). Lastly, with respect to hearing health, a study in Michigan found

that 70 percent of participants were exposed to typical noise levels that exceeded

Environmental Protection Agency guidelines; such exposure levels could negatively

impact their hearing over the long term (Flamme et al., 2012).

LIGHTING

Lighting also helps structure our perceptions of an environment, and these percep-

tions may influence the type of messages we send. If we enter a dimly lit or candle-

lit room, we may talk more softly, sit closer together, and presume that more

personal communication will take place (Meer, 1985). When dimly lit university

counseling rooms were compared with those that had brighter lighting, students

reported feeling more relaxed in the dimly lit rooms. The dimly lit counseling

rooms also elicited more self-disclosure from the students and higher ratings of the

counselors in those rooms (Miwa & Hanyu, 2006).

When a dimly lit environment is suddenly brightened, it tends to invite less

intimate interaction. For example, the flashing of bright lights in nightclubs that

previously maintained dim lighting is often a signal that closing time is near, and

this allows patrons some time to make the transition from one mood to another.

Carr and Dabbs (1974) found that the use of intimate questions in dim lighting

with nonintimates caused a significant hesitancy in responding, a significant

decrease in eye gaze, and a decrease in the average length of gaze. All of these

nonverbal behaviors appear to be efforts to create more psychological distance

and decrease the perceived inappropriateness of the intimacy created by the light-

ing and questions.

The absence of light seems to be a central problem for people who suffer from

seasonal affective disorder, a form of depression particularly acute in winter

months (Rosenthal, 1993). Therapists have successfully treated those who suffer

from seasonal affective disorder by exposing them to extremely bright light for

several hours each morning. Artificial lighting that provides a full-range light

spectrum, like that of the sun, is most effective in this therapy (Lewy et al., 1998).

In view of this need for sunlight, it has been postulated that cities with the lowest

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 113

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

amount of annual sunlight might also have the highest suicide rates, but findings

do not provide support for this hypothesis (Lester, 1988).

MOVABLE OBJECTS

If we know that the arrangement of certain objects in our environment can help

structure communication, it is not surprising that we often try to manipulate

objects to elicit specific responses. Politicians and government officials do this rou-

tinely, when choosing backdrops for their speeches. Manipulating objects in the

environment to communicate particular messages also occurs in personal living

spaces. In preparation for an intimate evening at home, a person may light candles;

play soft, romantic music; fluff the pillows on the couch; and hide the dirty dishes,

clothes, and other unpleasant reminders of daily living.

Employees often use objects to personalize their offices. These signs of personal

identity make them feel more satisfied with their work life and provide visitors with

information to initiate a conversation. Because the company also wants to commu-

nicate its identity, the amount and kinds of personal objects employees display

must also be consistent with the image the company wants to project. Objects in

our work environment can also be arranged to reflect certain role relationships, to

demarcate boundaries, or to encourage greater affiliation. The interior of an execu-

tive suite may clearly indicate the perceived status of the inhabitant; for example,

expensive paintings, a large desk, plush sofas and chairs, and drapes display success

(Monk, 1994). Such an atmosphere may be inappropriate for a personal counseling

situation, but it can be rearranged to make it more conducive to such a purpose. Of

course, we sometimes are able to communicate well in seemingly inappropriate set-

tings by blocking out the messages being sent by the environment, as when lovers

intimately say good-bye in relatively cold and public airport terminals.

Desks seem to be important objects in the conduct of interpersonal communi-

cation. An early experiment in this area, set in a doctor’s office, suggests that the

presence or absence of a desk may significantly alter the patient’s“at ease”state

(White, 1953). With the desk separating doctor and patient, only 10 percent of the

patients were perceived at ease, whereas removal of the desk increased the percent-

age of at-ease patients to 55 percent. Student-to-student interaction in classrooms

can be constrained by eliminating any possible movement of the student desks or

seats (see Figure 4-5). And student–teacher relationships can also be affected by

desk placement (Zweigenhaft, 1976). Faculty members were asked to sketch the

furniture arrangement of their offices. These sketches were collected and analyzed

with other information obtained from the professors, and a schoolwide teacher

evaluation was conducted. It was found that 24 of 33 senior faculty members put

their desks between themselves and their students, but only 14 of 30 junior faculty

members did so. Furthermore, students rated the “unbarricaded”professors as

more willing to “encourage the development of different viewpoints by students,”

ready to give “individual attention to students who need it,”and less likely to

show “undue favoritism.”Because another study did not find the desk barrier

related to undesirable experiences in student–professor interactions, we are

reminded that other factors may neutralize or override the potentially troublesome

effects of the desk barrier (Campbell & Herren, 1978). For example, students

114 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

expect greater formality in student–teacher relationships in some situations, and the

basis for an effective working relationship may have been established outside the

professor’s office, so the barrier is not perceived as such. The podium separating

the president’s press secretary from the press during White House press briefings

also has been perceived both as appropriate and as a barrier to effective communi-

cation. During the Nixon administration, press briefings were formal, and the press

secretary stood behind a podium. Ron Nessen, President Ford’s press secretary, felt

that the podium contributed to an unproductive “us and them”feeling, which

prompted him to conduct briefings without the obstacle.

The arrangement of other furniture items can facilitate or inhibit communica-

tion. The location of the television set in a room will likely affect the placement of

chairs and, in turn, the patterns of conversation in that room. Sommer and Ross

(1958) found that some residents in a geriatric ward were apathetic and had few

friends in spite of a generally cheerful and bright environment. They were able

to double the frequency of resident conversations by rearranging the chairs so

more of them faced each other. Even when conversational possibilities have been

maximized, not everyone will talk to everyone else. Consider the arrangement of

Figure 4-6. Without considering other factors, such as the relationship of the inter-

actants or their knowledge of the subject, we would predict exchanges marked by

the arrows to be most frequent. The four people seated on the couch, as well as

persons F and G, will probably talk to each other less frequently. The four on one

end are not likely to communicate very often with the four on the other end.

In some environments, people are not expected to linger, so chairs are deliberately

designed without comfort in mind. Hotel owners and airport designers are well aware

of the “too comfortable”phenomenon. You may have noticed the slightly uncomfort-

able nature of the 10 degree forward angle of chairs in some fast-food restaurants.

FIGURE 4-5

A classroom design with immovable chairs discourages student-to-student interactions.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 115

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

This feature encourages customers to eat and move along quickly to provide seats for

others. The Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York replaced its old wooden seats

with folding plastic seats only 8 inches deep that “require so much concentration to

balance that sleeping or even sitting for long is impossible.”This was done to keep

homeless people from sleeping in the terminal (Rimer, 1989).

STRUCTURE AND DESIGN

We pass much of our time in buildings. Most of us spend the day in a dwelling

supposedly designed for effective performance of our work; in the evening, we

enter another structure supposedly designed for the effective conduct of our per-

sonal and family life. The architecture of these buildings can go a long way toward

determining who meets whom, where, and perhaps for how long.

The life of domestic animals is controlled through, among other things, the

erection of fences, flap doors, litter boxes, or the placement of food and water in

particular locations. Although verbal and nonverbal actions help control human

situations, manipulation of barriers, openings, and other physical arrangements is

also helpful. Meeting places can be appropriately arranged to regulate human traf-

fic and, to a certain extent, the network of communication.

U.S. office buildings often are constructed from a standard plan that reflects a

pyramidal organization. A large number of people are under the direction of a few

executives at the upper levels. These executives generally have the most space, the

most privacy, and the most desirable office locations, usually on the highest floor

of the structure. Achieving a height above the masses and occupying a significant

amount of space are only two indications of power. Corner offices, large picture

windows, and private elevators also are associated with status and power (Monk,

1994). An office next to an important executive may also be a formidable power

base. A similar pattern seems to exist in academic settings as well, with the higher-

ranking professors normally accorded more space, windows, privacy, and choice of

office location (Farrenkopf & Roth, 1980). The offices of top-level executives are

often hard to reach, the assumption being that the more complicated the path to

get to the executive, the more powerful he or she seems. Figure 4-7 is a hypothetical,

B

ACD

E

FG

H

FIGURE 4-6

Conversation flow and furniture arrangement.

116 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

but not far-fetched, example of the long and circuitous route to a president’soffice.

To get to the office, the visitor must be screened by a receptionist and a private sec-

retary and, in either or both places, may be asked to sit and wait. So, although the

status and power of an executive may be related to his or her inaccessibility, secretar-

ies and receptionists may value open views that allow them to act as lookouts and

defenders against unwanted intrusions. It is common for people on the lowest rungs

of the organizational ladder to find themselves in a large, open “pit.”These so-called

offices—really only desks, sometimes encompassed by a temporary enclosure—have

little or no privacy, and complaints are common. Although privacy is minimal, com-

munication opportunities are plentiful.

Some dormitories are built from floor plans that resemble many office build-

ings and old hotels. It has been speculated that these corridor-type dorms tend to

encourage bureaucratic management, which seems to fit the orderly and uniform

structure. Rigid rules are easier to enforce in these structures, and interaction

among the residents is discouraged. Compared with suite-type dorms, corridor-

type dorms are perceived by residents as more crowded, less private, and more

conducive to avoiding others (Baum & Valins, 1979). The sense of community

and the resulting responsibility for the living space are difficult to achieve. Lounges

are sometimes intended to facilitate such interaction, but their usefulness has been

questioned by architects and behavioral scientists. Lounges, like other design

features, must be integrated into the entire architectural plan developed from

an analysis of human needs—not inserted in places where they fit nicely or look

good for parents and visitors.

If you look carefully, you can see many environmental structures that inhibit or

prohibit communication. Fences separating yards create obvious barriers, even if they

are only waist high; locating laundry rooms in dark, isolated areas of apartment

buildings and public housing discourages their use, particularly at night; providing

access to patios only through a bedroom probably discourages their use; and so on.

FIGURE 4-7

Getting to the president’s office. A, receptionist; B, private secretary; C, president; D, private

room with rear exit.

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 117

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Other environmental situations seem to facilitate interaction. Homes located in

the middle of a block seem to draw more interpersonal exchanges than those

located in other positions. Houses with adjacent driveways seem to have a built-in

structure that draws the neighbors together and invites communication. The likeli-

hood of interaction between strangers at a bar varies directly with the distance

between them. As a rule, a span of three bar stools is the maximum distance over

which patrons will attempt to initiate an encounter. Most bars are not designed

for optimal interaction. Note that the three bar designs in Figure 4-8 provide very

different opportunities for facing an interaction partner, for mutual eye gaze, and

for getting physically close. Most bars are similar to type B, which seems to dis-

courage interaction the most.

Some recent designs for housing the elderly have taken into consideration the

need for social contact. In these apartment dwellings, the doors of the apartments

on each floor open onto a common entranceway. This greatly increases the proba-

bility of social exchange compared to buildings where apartment doors are

staggered on either side of a long hallway with no facing doorways. If you want a

structure that encourages social interaction, you must have human paths that cross,

but if you want people to interact, there must be something that encourages them

to linger. Differences in interaction frequency are often related to the distances

people must travel between activities. For example, consider this comparison made

between two high schools: One was “centralized”with classrooms in one or two

buildings and one was “campus style”with classrooms spread among several

buildings. The campus design prompted 5 to 10 percent more interactions in the

halls, stairs, and lobbies but 7 to 10 percent fewer interactions in the classrooms

than the centralized design. There also were 20 percent fewer interactions between

students and teachers before and after class in the campus-style high school

(Myrick & Marx, 1968). It is no secret that the architecture of a school can affect

a student’s motivation to learn, a teacher’s motivation to teach, how much students

and teachers talk to each other, how long they talk, and, to a certain extent, what

they talk about. Older school designs were often based on how to maintain strict

discipline, emphasize status differences between students and teachers, and mini-

mize informal talking.

Architects and social scientists have even been experimenting with new prison

designs. The older structures, which had linear tiers of steel cages, are being

replaced with modular units that have fewer inmates and fewer barriers between

them and their guards. These new designs, coupled with new ways of managing

prisoners, seem to result in more positive behavior on the part of both guards

FIGURE 4-8

Designs for drinking.

118 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

and prisoners, provide more opportunities for rehabilitation, and reduce costs

(Cronin, 1992).

Furthermore, an environment’s design may encourage or discourage certain

types of communication; that is, the structure may determine how much interaction

takes place and the general content of that interaction. Drew (1971) reports a study

of three different designs for nursing stations within a mental hospital. In one,

interaction had to take place by opening a door; in another, interaction was con-

ducted through a glass-enclosed counter; and in the third, interaction took place

over an open counter. Although substantially more patients entered the nursing

station through the door, interactions occurred less frequently there than in the

other two stations. An average of only 1 interaction per each 15-minute observa-

tion period occurred with the door, 5.3 interactions occurred in the glass-enclosed

counter, and 8.7 occurred with the open counter. Although interaction was higher

for the open counter, the author noted a preponderance of social conversation

here; the door design seemed to encourage more item requests and permission

interactions. In short, the more inaccessible setting decreased interaction frequency

and increased task-oriented messages; the more accessible setting increased interac-

tion frequency and increased the amount of small talk.

A more complete analysis of physical proximity and spatial distance appears in

Chapter 5, but it is clearly relevant to this discussion on environments as well.

Over 60 years ago, Stouffer (1940) made this observation, which holds true today:

Whether one is seeking to explain why persons go to a particular place to get jobs,

why they go to trade at a particular store, why they go to a particular neighborhood

to commit a crime, or why they marry a particular spouse they choose, the factor of

spatial distance is of obvious significance. (p. 845)

Many studies have confirmed Stouffer’s remark. Students tend to develop stronger

friendships with students who share their classes, dormitories, and apartment

buildings, or who sit near them than with others who are geographically distant.

Workers tend to develop closer friendships with those who work near them.

The effect of proximity seems to be stronger for employees with less status in the

organization; managers, however, are more likely to choose their friends at the

office according to their status rather than their proximity (Schutte & Light,

1978). Some believe that increased proximity of ethnic groups will assist in reduc-

ing prejudice. Although close proximity may bring about positive attitude changes

between different ethnic groups, we must exercise caution in generalizing. If the

two groups are extremely polarized, or if they perceive no mutual problems or pro-

jects requiring cooperation, proximity may have little effect or may even magnify

hostilities.

Several studies show an inverse relationship between the distance separating

potential marriage partners and the number of marriages. Proximity allows us to

obtain more information about the other person. Obviously, obtaining more infor-

mation about someone may mean we soon learn that we are not attracted to the

person, but more often than not, proximity breeds attraction and, in turn, attrac-

tion leads to a desire to be in close proximity.

A number of studies have shown how proximity influences friendships. In one

study conducted in a townhouse development, most friendships occurred between

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 119

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

people who lived within 100 feet of each other. Next-door neighbors became close

friends 46 percent of the time; neighbors who lived two or three doors away

became close friends 24 percent of the time; and people who lived three or four

doors away became friends 13 percent of the time (Athanasiou & Yoshioka,

1973). Historically, the most famous study of proximity, friendship choice, and

interpersonal contact was conducted by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) in a

housing development for married students. Concern for what the authors called

functional distance led to data clearly demonstrating that architects can have a

tremendous influence on the social life of residents in these housing projects.

Functional distance is determined by the number of contacts that position and

design encourage; for example, factors such as which way apartments face, where

exits and entranceways are located, and location of stairways, mailboxes, and the

like all have an impact. Figure 4-9 shows the basic design of one type of building

studied.

The researchers asked the residents of 17 buildings, with the design of

Figure 4-9, which people they saw most often socially and what friendship choices

they made. Among the findings from this study, the following are noteworthy:

1. There seemed to be a greater number of friendship choices for those physically

close to one another, such as on the same floor or in the same building. It was

rare to find a friendship between people separated by more than four or five

houses.

2. People living in apartments 1 and 5 gave and received from the upper-floor

residents more friendship choices than the people living in any other apart-

ments on the lower floor.

3. Apartments 1 and 6 exchanged more friendship choices than apartments 2

and 7. Similarly, apartments 5 and 10 exchanged more friendship choices than

apartments 4 and 9. Although this represented the same physical distance,

functional distance differed.

4. Because of the mailboxes, apartment 5 chose more upper-level friends, more of

those choices being apartments 9 and 10.

Making friends takes many forms these days. In the physical world, functional

distance seems to be highly influential, and it is sometimes the result of architec-

tural design. However, the importance of such factors may be diminishing in the

age of the Internet. People start relationships with others through online services,

FIGURE 4-9

Design influences the social lives of residents in apartment buildings.

120 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

such as Match.com and eHarmony. The number of people who get married to

someone they met through online dating services is growing. Because of physical

distance or lack of opportunity to cross paths with each other, these couples might

never have met in the pre-Internet days. Moreover, people can start and maintain

friendships with others via their Facebook accounts. In modern classrooms, for

example, college students can stay in touch with someone from their hometown

while ignoring someone who is sitting nearby. By logging in to a Facebook

account, the current design and structure of the setting the student is in, whether it

is the dorm, classroom, or student lounge area, may not matter—he or she is in

cyberspace.

REGULATING ENVIRONMENTS AND COMMUNICATION

It should be clear by now that our communication is often affected by the social

and physical environment. And we have some control over structuring these envir-

onments; we can paint our walls a different color, substitute candles for electric

lights, and so on. But our communication environments are influenced by others,

too. Earlier in this chapter, we noted how architects and furniture designers affect

our social interaction, but laws and government regulations also play an important

role in creating the environments that affect our communicative behavior. It is

important to conclude the chapter with this reminder because gaining control over

the environment that affects our communication may mean becoming a community

activist or leader.

Zoning laws, for example, determine whether a part of our environment will

be used for industrial, commercial, or residential activity. Zoning laws also deter-

mine the population density of an area by defining how many housing units per

acre are allowed. Laws prohibiting adult bookstores from operating too close to

churches are essentially saying the two environments generate quite different forms

of communication and are not likely to happily share the same territory. When

business hours of operation are regulated, it affects when streets are empty, when

they are crowded, and what segment of the population occupies the street. Some

communities have specific laws governing signs and billboards, where they can be

placed, their size, materials, and colors that can be used, and so on. Obviously

these and similar regulations governing parking areas, parks, display windows,

and vending machines impact our social lives.

In addition, there are penal codes that punish loitering, smoking, drinking

alcoholic beverages, and other behaviors. Smoking regulations have changed

things such as where smokers are allowed to congregate. As a consequence,

smokers today may have a greater feeling of us (namely, the in-group of smo-

kers) versus them (namely, the out-group of nonsmokers) than did smokers of

the past. Moreover, in places that prohibit smoking, including college campuses,

smokers may be viewed as, and feel deviant for, the practice of lighting up.

Thus, in an effort to safeguard the well-being of those who occupy it, an

environment may be restructured both in a physical way (designated smoking

areas) and in a psychological way (e.g., regulations that recast the behavior of

smoking).

CHAPTER 4THE EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 121

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

SUMMARY

The environment in which people communicate

frequently contributes to the overall outcome of

their encounters. We have seen that both the

frequency and the content of our messages are

influenced by various aspects of the setting in

which we communicate. We have seen how the

environment influences our behavior, but we

also know that we can alter environments to elicit

certain types of responses. As our knowledge of

environments increases, we may deliberately use

them to help us obtain desired responses. In many

respects, we are products of our environment, and

if we want to change behavior, we need to learn to

control the environment in which we interact.

Throughout this chapter, we referred to a

number of different types of environments: class-

rooms, dormitories, offices, prisons, fast-food

restaurants, homes, and bars. We suggested sev-

eral different ways of looking at environments.

Mehrabian (1976), following research in other

areas of human perception, commented that

all environments could profitably be examined

by looking at emotional reactions to them.

These emotions or feelings, says Mehrabian,

can be plotted on three dimensions: arousing–

nonarousing, pleasant–unpleasant, and dominant–

submissive. We suggested six perceptual bases

for examining environments: formal–informal,

warm–cold, private–public, familiar–unfamiliar,

constraining–free, and distant–close. We also

pointed out that people perceive temporal aspects

of their environments: when things happen, how

long they last, how much time exists between

events, and the pattern or rhythm of events.

Each environment seems to have three major

characteristics: (1) the natural environment,

(2) the presence or absence of other people, and

(3) the architectural design and movable objects,

including lighting, sound, color, and general

visual-aesthetic appeal. The quality and quantity

of the research in each of these areas vary consid-

erably, but it is clear that any analysis of human

behavior must account for the influence of envi-

ronmental features.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Select a familiar environment that effectively

encourages or discourages human interaction.

Now indicate all the changes you would make

so this environment would have the exact

opposite effect.

2. Assume the role of a stranger entering your

own apartment or your family’s home. What

messages does the environment communicate?

3. The impact of environmental features on

human behavior will vary as a function of

context, but what features do you think

play a large or small role across different

contexts? Explain your choices.

4. How do people communicate time-related

messages by their behavior?

5. To get an idea of your time perspective, take

the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory,

which is available online.

122 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL

SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION

[CHAPTER5]

“If you can read this, you’re too close,”announces a familiar automobile bumper

sticker in an attempt to regulate the amount of space between vehicles for traffic

safety. Signs reading “Keep Out,”“Private Property,”and “Authorized Personnel

Only”are also attempts to regulate space among human beings. We do not put up

signs in daily conversation, but we use other signals to avoid uncomfortable crowd-

ing and other perceived invasions of our personal space. Our use of space—our

own and others’—can dramatically affect our ability to achieve certain desired

communication goals, whether those goals involve romance, diplomacy, or aggres-

sion. A fundamental concept in any discussion of human spatial behavior is the

notion of territoriality. An understanding of this concept provides a useful perspec-

tive for our later examination of conversational space.

THE CONCEPT OF TERRITORIALITY

The term territoriality has been used for years in the study of animal and bird

behavior. Generally, it means behavior characterized by identification with a geo-

graphic area in a way that indicates ownership and often involves defense of this

territory against perceived invaders. For humans, territoriality concerns physical

items (“my book”) and physical space (“my dorm room”), objects or ideas (“my

proposed solution”) that we feel we have psychological ownership of, as well as

some combination of the two (plagiarism is stealing another person’s thoughts by

using his or her words and claiming them as your own).

Spatial changes give a tone to a communication, accent it, and at times even

override the spoken word.

—E. T. Hall

123

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

There are many kinds of territorial behavior, and frequently such behaviors

perform useful functions for a given species. For instance, territorial behaviors may

help coordinate activities, regulate density, ensure propagation of the species, hold

the group together, provide a sense of well-being, and offer hiding places. Most

behavioral scientists agree that territoriality exists in human behavior. It helps reg-

ulate social interaction, but it also can be the source of social conflict. Like other

animals, the more powerful, dominant humans seem to have control over more

territory—as long as the group or societal structure is stable.

Altman (1975) identified three types of territories: (1) primary, (2) secondary,

and (3) public. The key distinction is the extent of ownership felt or warranted.

Primary territories are clearly the exclusive domain of the owner. They are central

to the daily functioning of the owner, and they are guarded carefully against intru-

ders. For this reason, the invisible buffer zone surrounding our body also qualifies

as a primary territory. It is not stationary and visible, like other territories, but the

degree of ownership is extremely high, access to others is often very limited, and

the defense against intrusions can be particularly fierce.

Homes or bedrooms often qualify as primary territory. Goffman’s(1971)

description of possessional territories—which include personal effects such as jackets,

purses, and even dependent children—also seems to fit the requirements of primary

territory. In this same category, Goffman discusses objects that can be claimed tem-

porarily by people, for example, a magazine, television set, or eating utensils. These

objects, however, seem to be more representative of what Altman calls secondary

territories, which are not as central to the daily life of the owner, nor are they per-

ceived as clearly exclusive to the owner. The neighborhood bar or those objects like

magazines or television sets are examples of secondary territories. More frequent

conflicts are apt to develop over these territories because the public–private bound-

ary is blurred. The following exchange is an example of this conflict: “Let me watch

my program on TV. I was here first.”“It’snotyourTV.Youdon’t own it.”

Public territories are available to almost anyone for temporary ownership. Parks,

beaches, streets, seats on public transportation, telephone booths, a place in line, or an

unobstructed line of vision to see a particular object of interest are examples. The terms

temporary occupancy or ownership are important. A cleaning person who enters our

office to clean without our permission might be offensive because permission was not

granted, but the intrusion is temporary and job related. It would be a different story,

however, if this person occupied the office all day or used it for noncleaning activities,

such as eating lunch. The chairs in a classroom are theoretically available to anyone in

the class for temporary occupancy, but frequent use or a desirable location can result

in greater perceived ownership and territorial behavior (Kaya, 2007).

Territorial behavior seems to be a standard part of our daily contact with

others, and it also is evident when sufficient social contact is denied. Altman and

Haythorn (1967) analyzed the territorial behavior of socially isolated and noniso-

lated pairs of men. For 10 days, two individuals lived in a small room with no out-

side contact while a matched group received outside contacts. The men in the

isolated groups showed a gradual increase in territorial behavior and a general pat-

tern of social withdrawal; they desired more time alone. Their territorial behavior

first evidenced itself with fixed objects, areas of the room, and personal objects such

as beds. Later they began to claim more mobile and less personal objects. When the

124 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

two men living together were incompatible with respect to dominance and affiliation,

this resulted in greater territorial behavior.

TERRITORIALITY: INVASION AND DEFENSE

We have to deal with the potential of other people invading our physical territory

at many different levels, including our bodies, our personal belongings, our per-

sonal space, our home, our neighborhood, our work/school environment (Brown &

Robinson, 2011), and our nation. For example, instructions to police interrogators

sometimes suggest sitting close to the suspect without the intervention of a desk

that might provide protection or comfort. This theory of interrogation assumes

that invasion of the suspect’s personal territory, with little opportunity for defense,

will give the officer a psychological advantage. Other examples of human territorial

invasion and defense include members of adolescent gangs and ethnic groups who

stake out territory in urban areas and defend it against intruders. Preserving

national boundaries often underlies international disputes. What happens when

somebody invades your territory? For instance, how do you feel when the car

behind you is tailgating? When you have to stand in an overpopulated theater

lobby or bus? When somebody sits in “your”seat? What do you do? Researchers

have asked similar questions, and their answers help us understand further how

we treat the objects and space around us.

Obviously, not all territorial encroachments are the same. Lyman and Scott

(1967) identify three types:

1. Violation involves the unwarranted use of another’s territory. This may be done

with the eyes (staring at somebody eating in a public restaurant); with the voice

or other sounds (somebody talking loudly nearby on a cell phone or construc-

tion noise next to a classroom); or with the body (taking up two subway seats).

2. Invasion is more all-encompassing and permanent. It is an attempt to take

over another’s territory. This may be an armed invasion of another country or

the act of a wife who has turned her husband’s den into her computer room.

3. Contamination is defiling another’s territory, not by our presence but by what

we leave behind. When we take temporary occupancy of a hotel room, for

instance, we do not want to find the previous “owner’s”toilet articles and soiled

sheets. Similarly, we are frequently upset when someone else’s dog leaves feces in

our yard, or when we find food particles on “our”silverware in restaurants.

Encroachments on our territory do not always produce defensive maneuvers.

The intensity of our reaction to territorial encroachment varies depending on a

number of factors, including the following:

1. Who violated our territory? We may have very different reactions to friends’

or acquaintances’violations as opposed to those of strangers. We may be more

inclined to share personal things, including our space, with people we know

(Kaya & Weber, 2003). We may also react differently depending on the gen-

der, status, and age of the violator.

2. Why did they violate our territory? If we feel that the violator “knew better,”

we might react more strongly than if we felt he or she “couldn’t help it”or

was naive.

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 125

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

3. What type of territory was it? We are more likely to perceive a violation of

our primary territory as far more serious than the violation of a secondary or

public territory we are occupying, although people sometimes attribute more

ownership to secondary and public territories than they deserve.

4. How was the violation accomplished? Was it done in a threatening way? If our

body is touched, we may be more aroused and defensive than if someone walks

across our yard. On the other hand, sometimes any intrusion, whether made in a

threatening manner or not, will be perceived as a threat (Ruback & Kohli, 2005).

5. How long did the encroachment last? If the violation is perceived as tempo-

rary, reactions may be less severe.

6. Do we expect further violations in the future? If so, the initial territorial

defense may be more intense.

7. Where did the violation occur? The population density and opportunities for

negotiating new territorial boundaries will surely affect our reaction.

The two primary methods for territorial defense are prevention and reaction.

Prevention is a means of staking out our territory so others recognize it as ours

and go elsewhere. We may position ourselves in such a way so as to keep others

away from “our”space (see Figure 5-1). A person’s mere presence in a place can

keep others from entering it. If we stay in a place long enough or often enough,

FIGURE 5-1

Territorial defense.

Terrence Horgan

126 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

others think we “own”it (e.g., a seat in a classroom). Sometimes we ask others to

assist us in staking out and defending territory: “Would you hold my seat while I

go get some popcorn?”

Objects are also used as territorial markers to designate “your”spatial area. In

places with relatively low density, markers such as umbrellas, coats, and notebooks

are often effective; indeed, sometimes these markers will reserve not only a seat in a

public area but also an entire table. Markers that appear more personal may be more

effective in preventing violations but are also vulnerable to theft. If the marked terri-

tory is highly desirable to many others in the immediate area, markers probably will

maintain their effectiveness for shorter periods of time. In public territories, it may be

more effective to leave several markers, as these areas are open to nearly everyone.

Commuters on trains with a seating arrangement that requires three passengers to sit

side by side illustrate how territorial intrusion is sometimes the result of the combined

behavior by the protector of the territory and the intruder. Passengers seated on the

inside and outside of the three-seat arrangement position their legs, belongings, news-

papers, and so on, to convey the idea that sitting in the middle seat in “their”territory

is forbidden. At the same time, many commuters who could sit in the vacant middle

seats with two strangers on each side decide that taking the middle-seat territory is

less desirable than standing or sitting on the floor—unless, of course, they are so tired

that this is a less desirable course of action (McGeehan, 2005; see Figure 5-2).

Sometimes the uniforms people are wearing identify a territory that can be

legitimately used by a particular person. Often we construct fences and grow

hedges to demarcate territory. And sometimes we stake out territory simply by the

way we conduct our verbal interaction; a special jargon or dialect can warn others

that a particular space is reserved for those who “know the language.”

If the prevention of territorial violations does not work, how do people react?

When people come close to us in face-to-face encounters, we are physiologically

FIGURE 5-2

Seating on a commuter train.

Susan Stava/The New York Times

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 127

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

aroused, and heart rate and galvanic skin responses increase (Finando, 1973;

McBride, King, & James, 1965). (Note that these are generalized arousal responses,

not sexual ones.) Men take longer to start urinating when another man is standing

at a closer compared to a farther-away urinal (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter,

1976). These arousal responses are not restricted to approaching humans; Llobera,

Spanlang, Ruffini, and Slater (2011) found that people also showed signs of increased

physiological arousal the closer they were approached by virtual characters.

Once aroused, we need to label our state as positive (liking, love, relief) or neg-

ative (dislike, embarrassment, stress, anxiety). If the aroused state is labeled posi-

tively, according to Patterson (1976), we will reciprocate the behavior; if it is

labeled negatively, we will take measures to compensate. If someone is aroused by

another person’s approach and identifies it as undesirable, we could predict behav-

ior designed to restore the proper distance between the interactants: looking away,

changing the topic to a less personal one, crossing the arms to form a frontal bar-

rier to the invasion, covering body parts, rubbing the neck to point the elbow

sharply toward the invader, and so on. Russo conducted a 2-year study of invading

the territory of female college students seated in a college library (Sommer, 1969).

The study compared the responses of those invaded and a similar group that was

not invaded. Several different invasion techniques were used: sitting next to sub-

jects, across from them, and so on. The quickest departure or flight was triggered

when the researcher sat next to a subject and moved her chair closer by approxi-

mately a foot. Other researchers have suggested that when strangers are involved,

males feel more stress from frontal invasions, whereas women react more unfavor-

ably to adjacent invasions (Fisher & Byrne, 1975). After approximately 30 minutes,

about 70 percent of the people Russo approached at the 1-foot distance moved.

From Russo’s study, a whole vocabulary of defense was developed. For instance,

defensive and offensive displays included the use of position, posture, and gesture.

Position refers to location in the room; a newcomer to the room will interpret the sit-

uation differently if the other person has selected a corner position rather than one in

the middle of the room. Posture refers to indicators such as whether a person has

materials spread out like he or she owned the space or whether they are tightly orga-

nized. Gestures can be used to indicate receptivity or rejection of communication, for

example, hostile glances, turning or leaning away, and blocking with hands or arms.

Although verbal defense is not a common first reaction, requests or even profanity

can be effectively used. Russo’s work is summarized by Sommer (1969):

There were wide individual differences in the ways victims reacted—there is no single

reaction to someone’s sitting too close; there are defensive gestures, shifts in posture,

and attempts to move away. If these fail or are ignored by the invader, or he shifts

position too, the victim eventually takes to flight.…There was a dearth of direct verbal

responses to the invasions.…Only one of the eighty students asked the invader to

move over. (pp. 35–36)

It is worth remembering that the norm of politeness is strong enough to inhibit

such direct verbal responses. This demonstrates one important feature of nonverbal

communication: It is often off the record and can convey messages subtly without

provoking confrontation. The person who glares, shuffles papers, or leans away

does not have to acknowledge publicly his or her irritation. Barash (1973)

128 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

conducted a study similar to Russo’s, but the library invaders’status was manipu-

lated. Students fled more quickly from more formally dressed, “high-status”inva-

ders. Knowles (1973) also experimented with a familiar type of invasion: talking

to somebody in a hallway leaving other people to decide whether to walk through

the conversants or around them. Only 25 percent of the people in this study

walked through, but when the conversants were replaced with barrels, 75 percent

of the passersby walked through. The fewest intrusions occurred with four-person

groups, rather than a dyad, and “high-status”conversants (i.e., those older and

more formally dressed). This study illustrates that, besides not wanting others to

violate our territory, we generally do not want to violate others’territory either, as

the mumbled apologies and bowed heads of some of Knowles’s invaders testified.

Increasing population density also results in territorial violations. What hap-

pens when the population becomes so dense that we cannot exercise the usual terri-

torial behavior?

DENSITY AND CROWDING

During the 1960s, many people were alarmed about the rapidly increasing world

population. The first edition of Erlich’s (1971) best-selling book, The Population

Bomb, was published in 1968. It pointed to a rapidly increasing birth rate and pre-

dicted the death of hundreds of millions of people due to the effects of an overpopu-

lated world. The growth of urban areas and increasing violence in inner-city areas

also fueled concern for the effects of population growth. The central question was

this: If worldwide population were to increase dramatically, would there be dire con-

sequences? Some highly publicized research with rats seemed to fully support the fear

that bad things would happen in highly dense populations (Calhoun, 1962).

Calhoun noted that with plenty of food and no danger from predators,

Norway rats in a quarter-acre outdoor pen stabilized their population at about

150. His observations, covering 28 months, indicated that spatial relationships are

extremely important. He then designed an experiment in which he could maintain

a stressful situation through overpopulation while three generations of rats were

reared. He labeled this experiment a behavioral sink, an area or receptacle where

most of the rats exhibited gross distortions of normal behavior. Some of Calhoun’s

observations are worth noting:

1. Some rats withdrew from social and sexual intercourse completely; others

began to mount anything in sight; courtship patterns were totally disrupted,

and females were frequently pursued by several males.

2. Nest-building patterns, ordinarily neat, became sloppy or nonexistent.

3. Litters of young rats became mixed; newborn and young rats were stepped on

or eaten by invading hyperactive males.

4. Unable to establish spatial territories, dominant males fought over positions near

the eating bins; the hyperactive males violated all territorial rights by running

around in packs and disregarding any boundaries except those backed by force.

5. Pregnant rats frequently had miscarriages; disorders of the sex organs were

numerous; only a fourth of the 558 newborns in the sink survived to be weaned.

6. Aggressive behavior increased significantly.

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 129

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Can we generalize from rats to people? Some early studies that found moderate

correlations between various socially undesirable outcomes such as crime, delin-

quency, mental and physical disorders, and high population density seemed to sug-

gest so. Others facetiously contended that the only generalization we could make

from Calhoun’s work was “Don’t crowd rats!”But even this is an overstatement.

Judge (2000), who analyzed numerous studies of high density among animal popu-

lations, would probably say “Don’t crowd rats with aggressive tendencies.”In his

own words:

The individual characteristics and aggressive tendencies of animals that compose popu-

lations can influence aggression more so than increasing population density. Even the

results of Calhoun’s (1962) influential rat studies were dictated by the unique behavior

of a few individuals. The infamous “behavioral sinks”developed when a few dominant

adult males established breeding territories in quarter sections of the compartmental-

ized pens used in the experiments. The remainder of the colony became restricted to

single compartments. In colonies in which males did not establish territories or did so

in a manner that did not restrict the rest of the colony, no “behavioral sinks”devel-

oped (Calhoun, 1962). This outcome of increased density is rarely cited. (p. 144)

Other studies show that animals do not always respond to high density in neg-

ative or aggressive ways (Freedman, 1979; Judge & de Waal, 1993). In one study,

the number of aggressive acts performed by monkeys living in environments of dif-

fering densities, from cages to free-ranging activity on an island, was compared

(Judge & de Waal, 1997). Aggression was not significantly more prevalent in

high-density environments, but coping behavior was. As density increased, the fol-

lowing types of coping behavior also increased: mutual grooming, rapid reconcilia-

tion after a fight, and the use of specific facial expressions to indicate the desire to

avoid trouble. This tendency to develop ways to cope with high-density life in ways

other than aggression is much like the human adaptations reported in the next two

sections. Behavioral sinks are not an inevitable result of unchecked population

growth. Stress and aggression among those in high-density situations may also be

affected by the amount of space available, the duration of the high-density experi-

ence, the ability to enact coping behavior, the extent to which key relationships

can be maintained, and other factors. In other words, the widely publicized results

of Calhoun’s work, which suggested unequivocally harmful consequences of

increasing population density, are incorrect. Based on human-density and crowding

research conducted thus far, the results are complex and do not lend themselves to

a simple “crowding is bad”conclusion. To understand the effects of population

density on human beings, we must first distinguish between the terms density and

crowding. Density refers to the number of people per unit of space; crowding is a

feeling state that may develop in high- or low-density situations. Perceptions of

being crowded may be elicited by the following factors:

1. Environmental factors, such as reduced space; unwanted noise; the lack of

needed resources or the ability to obtain them; and the absence of territorial

markers, such as screens and partitions.

2. Personal factors, such as gender (males may feel the effects of density more

acutely than females); personality characteristics reflecting low self-esteem,

high dominance, or high need for control; a low desire for social contact; and

prior unpleasant experiences with high density.

130 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

3. Social factors, such as a high frequency of unwanted social contact from many

people at close quarters and the inability to change such patterns; inescapable

interactions with people from an unfamiliar group; and unpleasant interactions

that may be perceived as hostile or competitive. As one example, aggression at

night clubs may be due, in part, to interior designs that lead to crowding; specifi-

cally, Macintyre and Homel (1997) found that high-risk clubs for aggression had

interior designs that resulted in more cross-flow traffic (i.e., people going in two

directions) and thus more opportunities for unintended contact (e.g., bumping)

between people.

4. Goal-related factors, such as the inability to accomplish what is desired.

The central theme characterizing most of the research in this area is that perceptions of

crowding tend to increase as we perceive a decrease in our ability to control and influ-

ence our physical and social surroundings. Although the factors in the preceding list

may contribute to perceptions of crowding, most high-density situations are character-

ized by some factors that decrease control and some that do not. Given these condi-

tions, what can we say about the effects of high density and human reactions to it?

THE EFFECTS OF HIGH DENSITY ON HUMAN BEINGS

Definitions of density are complex and varied. Correlational studies have used the

number of people per city, per census tract, or per dwelling unit; the number of

rooms per dwelling unit; the number of buildings per neighborhood; and so on.

Experimental studies sometimes put the same-sized group into different-sized

rooms; others vary the number of people in the same room. Laboratory studies

that vary density to analyze its effects on perceptions of crowding may have rele-

vance only to those situations in which high density is a temporary condition,

such as on elevators and buses. Few studies have considered the rate at which high

density evolves, or whether participants feel they had any control over the develop-

ment of a high-density situation. To sort through these variations in measurement,

the following conclusions seem warranted.

First, it seems clear that increased density does not automatically increase stress or

antisocial behavior in human beings. Sometimes we even seek the pleasures of density

(see Figure 5-3). Football games and rock concerts are familiar examples. If we take

responsibility for our presence in a highly populated situation, and if we know the

condition will terminate in a matter of hours, the chances of negative effects seem to

be greatly reduced. Nevertheless, negative effects of density do occur. In one study,

classroom density decreased girls’academic achievement and negatively affected

boys’behavior (Maxwell, 2003). In another study, residential density was positively

associated with the likelihood of adolescents being overweight in Nanjing, China (Xu

et al., 2010). Other studies have found results—such as aggression, stress, criminal

activity, hostility toward others, and a deterioration of mental and physical health—

that might fit well into a behavioral-sink theory. However, we find other studies in

which other environmental factors may offer greater explanatory power or that fail

to confirm these highly negative effects altogether. With regard to adolescents, it may

be that their proximity to crime contributes more to their substance abuse problems

than does the population density of their neighborhoods (Mason & Mennis, 2010).

When negative outcomes are not found, the explanation usually lies in the fact that

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 131

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the environmental, personal, social, and goal-related factors mentioned earlier could

provide a form of control that was influential in offsetting undesirable influences. For

example, Altman (1975) cites a study by Rohe and Patterson (1974), which found that

if children were provided with enough of the toys they wanted, increased density

would not produce the withdrawal and aggression suggested by previous studies.

Some high-density neighborhoods that are highly cohesive actually have a lower inci-

dence of mental and physical health problems.

Second, we sometimes blame high density for undesirable effects, either

because it is an obvious feature of the situation and has a reputation for causing

problems, or because the real causes are things we do not wish to face. Students

who took a long time to complete their college registration tended to perceive the

large number of students trying to register as the cause for their delays. They did

not attribute their delays to forgetting needed forms, filling out forms incorrectly,

and not preparing alternative course selections prior to registration (Gochman &

Keating, 1980). High density can produce a host of problems, but human beings

do not stand by passively in situations that demand a long-term commitment to

high density; instead, they try various methods to cope with or offset potentially

harmful effects. What are some of the methods of coping?

COPING WITH HIGH DENSITY

City dwellers are often exposed to an overload of information, people, things, pro-

blems, and so forth. As a result, they engage in behavior designed to reduce this

FIGURE 5-3

A high-density beach.

Alessandro Oliva/Photos.com

132 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

overload, which sometimes causes outsiders to see them as distant and emotionally

detached from others. Here are some of the methods for coping in populated cities:

1. Spending less time with each input, for example, having shorter conversations

with people

2. Disregarding low-priority inputs, for example, ignoring the drunk on the side-

walk or not talking to people seen on a commuter train every day

3. Shifting the responsibility for some transactions to others, for example, reliev-

ing bus drivers of the responsibility for making change

4. Blocking inputs, for example, using attendants to guard apartment buildings

Nigerian students used nine different strategies to cope with high-density con-

ditions in their residence halls (Amole, 2005). Strategies used to clearly define per-

sonal territory and studying in less dense locations were two of the most common.

Evans and colleagues (2010) showed in both a U.S. and a UK sample that the link

between household crowding, measured as the number of people per room, and

children’s lack of readiness for school may be due, in part, to a reduction in mater-

nal responsiveness. Now let us shift our attention from spatial relationships in

overpopulated conditions to those involved in a two-person conversation.

CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCE

As children, we are exposed to gradually increasing distances for various communi-

cation situations. The first few years of life provide a familiarity with what is known

as intimate distance; the child then learns appropriate conversational distances for

an increasing number of acquaintances and friends; and by about age 7, the child

may have incorporated the concept of public distance into his or her behavioral rep-

ertoire. So by about the third grade, children have learned that conversational dis-

tance has meaning. As they age, children will gradually reflect adult norms for their

culture as they make spatial adjustments for interactants who are known or

unknown, tall or short, higher status or lower status, and so on. What are these

adult norms? What are comfortable conversational distances? (see Figure 5-4).

To answer these questions, first we turn to the astute observations about

human spatial behavior made by anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1959, 1966).

Hall identified several types of space, but our concern here is with what he called

informal space. Others have referred to this as personal space, but because the

space between people is the result of negotiating their personal preferences, it is

more appropriately labeled interpersonal space. The informal space for each indi-

vidual expands and contracts under varying circumstances, depending on the type

of encounter, the relationship of the communicating persons, their personalities,

and many other factors. Hall identified four types of informal space: (1) intimate,

(2) casual–personal, (3) social–consultative, and (4) public. According to

Hall, intimate distances range from actual physical contact to about 18 inches;

casual–personal extends from 1.5 to 4 feet; social–consultative,forimpersonalbusi-

ness, ranges from 4 to 12 feet; and public distance covers the area from 12 feet to

the limits of visibility or hearing. Hall was quick to note that these distances are

based on his observations of a particular sample of adults from business and profes-

sional occupations, primarily white middle-class males native to the northeastern

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 133

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

FIGURE 5-4

Variations in conversational distance and position.

Jeff Greenberg/PhotoEdit Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com

134 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

United States, and any generalization to other ethnic and racial groups in the

United States should be made with considerable caution. Sommer (1961) also

sought answers to questions about comfortable conversational distance. He studied

people who were brought into a room and told to discuss various impersonal

topics. Two sofas were placed in the room at various distances, and subjects were

observed to see whether they sat opposite or beside each other. It was hypothesized

that when they began to sit side by side, it would mean the conversational distance

was too far to sit opposite each other on the two couches. From 1 to 3 feet, the

subjects sat on different couches facing each other. Beyond 3.5 feet, people sat

side by side. If we measure distance “nose to nose,”this would make the partici-

pants 5.5 feet apart when they started to sit side by side, assuming they were not

DOYOU WALK THIS WAY?

Walking is another area in

which interpersonal distance

and spatial arrangement

have been investigated. In a

naturalistic study, Costa

(2010) filmed people as

they walked by a designat-

ed area in one of two Ital-

ian cities. He examined the

alignment (i.e., the degree

to which people were

walking side by side), spa-

tial arrangement (i.e., how

people were positioned in

relation to one another),

and walking speed of peo-

ple as a function of the size

(two to five people) and

gender composition of the group (only males, only females, mixed gender). The findings for alignment

and spatial arrangement follow:

•Mixed-gender dyads were the most aligned (e.g., when looking at the two people from the side, the

horizontal distance between their heads was the shortest). Male–male dyads were the most out of align-

ment. And female–female dyads were somewhere in between.

•In mixed-gender dyads, males were more likely than females to be the person walking ahead of the other.

•The spatial arrangement found in triads, from the most to the least likely, was as follows: (1) The two

side people were walking aligned and ahead of the middle person (see photo above); (2) all three were

out of alignment with the middle person behind one person on one side and ahead of the other person

on the other side; (3) the two people on the sides were walking in alignment behind the middle person;

and (4) all three people were walking in alignment.

•In triads, there was greater alignment when the walkers were all females than when they were all males

or when there were members of both sexes present.

Terrence Horgan

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 135

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

leaning forward or backward. In a follow-up study, Sommer used chairs, which

allowed him to vary side-by-side distance as well as the distance across. Here he

found that people chose to sit across from each other until the distance across

exceeded the side-by-side distance; they then sat side by side.

How generalizable are these findings? A critical look at this study immediately

leads us to question what other variables may affect the distance relationship. For

instance, this study was conducted with people who knew each other slightly,

were discussing impersonal topics, and were in a large lounge. How would other

factors affect the distance relationship? For a long time, researchers have theorized

that distance is based on the balance of approach and avoidance forces. What are

some of these forces? Burgoon (1978) and Burgoon and Jones (1976) say that the

distances we assume in a given conversation are a function of our cultural and

personal expectations for appropriate distances. When someone violates these

expectations, it garners our attention. Sometimes the violation is so immediately

aversive that we flee or become very defensive. On other occasions, we mentally

process the nature of the violation and the violator to determine our response. The

violation of personal space may be judged to be more positive or more negative

than the expected behavior, and we adapt accordingly. When the positive or nega-

tive nature of the violation is not clear, we assess our perceptions of the violator.

A positive evaluation of the violator should lead to a positive evaluation of the

space violation in such cases and vice versa. What are some of these expectations

for conversational distance, and how do they develop? What factors lead us to

assume certain conversational distances?

Answering these questions is the focus for the remainder of this chapter. Again,

however, we must sort through conflicting results due to variations in research meth-

odology and conceptualization of personal space. Logically, we know that conversa-

tional distance is the product of both interactants’negotiations. But some research is

based on the behavior of a single person; some does not distinguish between actual

physical distance and perceptions of distance; some measures distance by floor tiles

or space between chair legs and totally ignores the ability of the communicators to

vary the “psychological distance”by changes in topic, eye gaze, and body angle;

and most research does not distinguish between initial distance and changes that

take place over the course of a conversation. Because the methods of measuring per-

sonal space vary, we even have to be cautious about results that agree with other

studies. Sometimes people complete questionnaires about preferred distances; some-

times they are asked to approach nonhuman objects, such as coat racks and

life-sized photographs; sometimes people are unknowingly approached at various

distances by others; and sometimes they are asked to arrange miniature dolls, photo-

graphs, or silhouettes as if they were in various communication situations. With

these factors in mind, we selected the following important sources of variation in

conversational distance. They encompass much of what Sommer (2002) called the

“best-substantiated”findings about personal space.

1. Sex

2. Age

3. Cultural and ethnic background

4. Topic or subject matter

5. Setting for the interaction

136 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

6. Physical characteristics

7. Attitudinal and emotional orientation

8. Characteristics of the interpersonal relationship

9. Personality characteristics

SEX

Many studies have looked at sex differences in interpersonal space using all the

methodologies listed earlier. Hall (1984) has summarized this research. In natural-

istic interaction, settings in which people are interacting more or less naturally and

are not aware of being observed, females predominantly choose to interact with

others of either sex more closely than males do, as long as the conversations are

neutral or friendly. When the conversations are threatening or alienating, females

assume a greater conversational distance (Bell, Kline, & Barnard, 1988).

Another way of understanding sex differences in interpersonal distance is to

examine how the other person’s sex influences the distance set. (The preceding dis-

cussion applies only to the influence of one’s own sex on that distance.) The research

shows very convincingly that people approach females closer than they approach

males, and this remains true no matter what kind of methodology is used. When

the effects for one’s own sex and those for the other’s sex are combined, they show

that female–female pairs interact most closely, male–male pairs interact most dis-

tantly, and mixed-sex pairs set intermediate distances. This pattern shows up fre-

quently in research, especially in Anglo-American samples. Several theories have

been put forth to explain these sex differences in conversational distances. One pop-

ular notion is rooted in the different amounts of space children experience. It has

been noted, for example, that the same stimuli may cause parents to put male infants

on the floor or in a playpen but to hug the females or put them in a nearby high

chair. Boys are frequently given toys or balls that seem to encourage activities

demanding more space, often away from the confines of the home itself (e.g., cars,

trains, and a football). Girls, in contrast, may receive dolls, dollhouses, and other

toys that require less space. Some observational studies have confirmed that young

boys at play utilize more space than young girls, but this does not explain those

instances in which women want greater interaction distance. The oppression hypothesis

suggests that women choose a closer interaction distance because people with

less status in society are accorded less space, but Atsuko (2003) did not find evidence

to support this theory. Using social orientation as the basis for explaining the interac-

tion distances chosen by women has the advantage of explaining both closer and

more distant interaction preferences. Women,thesetheoristsargue,aremoresocially

oriented than males, so they should prefer distances that connote warmth, trust,

and friendship. Eagly (1987), using social role theory, believes women play a more

person-oriented and prosocial role in society, which manifests itself in various kinds of

behavior, including interaction distances consistent with that role.

AGE

If distance reflects our general comfort with a person, it seems reasonable to predict

that we would interact more closely to people in our own general age range. The

exceptions, of course, are the very old and very young who, for various reasons,

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 137

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

often elicit interaction at closer quarters. Generally, interaction distance seems to

expand gradually from about age 6 to early adolescence, when adult norms seem

to be reflected (Aiello & Aiello, 1974). Adults are also more likely to hold older

children responsible for understanding adult norms. When 5-year-olds invaded the

personal space of people waiting in line to see a movie, they were received posi-

tively; but when 10-year-olds were the invaders, they were met with negative

responses (Fry & Willis, 1971). Obviously, these reactions are modified by the

communicative context, but these studies do suggest that adults expect the norms

for conversational distance to be learned before the child is 10. Children are able

to decode proxemic meanings before they encode them in their daily interactions,

as is true of many behaviors.

CULTURAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND

Volumes of folklore and isolated personal observations suggest that spatial rela-

tionships in other cultures with different needs and norms may produce very differ-

ent distances for interacting.

Infants reared in different cultures learn different proxemic patterns. A group

of Japanese mothers spent more time in close contact with their infants than a com-

parable group of mothers in the United States. Mother, father, and infant in Japan

usually sleep in the same room. In the Nyansongo culture of Kenya, infants are

always in close proximity to a family member, and the infant sleeps in the mother’s

arms at night (Caudill & Weinstein, 1972). It is not hard to see how such patterns

provide a different sense of distance when compared to the patterns of children

who are put into a separate room to sleep several times during the day as well as

at night. Hall (1966) used the terms contact and noncontact to distinguish the

behavior of people from different cultural groups. Compared to noncontact cul-

tures, interactants in contact cultures are expected to face one another more

directly, interact more closely with one another, touch one another more, look one

another in the eye more, and speak in a louder voice. In a study by Watson (1970),

contact cultures were Arabs, Latin Americans, and southern Europeans. Noncon-

tact cultures were Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, northern Europeans, and people liv-

ing in the United States. Studies by Watson and others have found support for

these predicted differences, but it is important to remember that these broad cul-

tural norms may or may not manifest themselves in any particular conversation

within a culture (Remland, Jones, & Brinkman, 1991). Whether interactants know

each other, whether they are arguing, whether they are talking to a person of their

same sex, and a host of other factors may sometimes offset these broad cultural

tendencies. For example, Sanders, Hakky, and Brizzolara (1985) found few differ-

ences between the comfortable conversational space of Egyptian and American

males, but Egyptian females were not like their American counterparts. A comfort-

able interaction distance for male friends of the Egyptian women was nearly as dis-

tant as that for male strangers. In another study, close seating of two brothers was

more comfortable to Saudi students than to American students, but when the inter-

actants were a brother and sister, it was the American students who found a com-

fort zone in closer interaction distances (Hewitt & Alqahtani, 2003). Shuter’s

(1976, 1977) systematic field observations in contact and noncontact cultures

138 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

remind us that somewhat different proxemic norms may apply for groups within

the larger culture. He found, for instance, significant differences within the so-

called Latin American cultural group. Costa Ricans interacted more closely than

did Panamanians or Colombians. And contrary to predictions, he found no signifi-

cant differences in interaction distance and touching for women in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, and Venice, Italy. Italian men did not manifest closer interaction posi-

tions or face their interaction partners more directly than German men, but they

did engage in more touching. Variations in proxemic patterns in the United States

have been the subject of several research projects. For example, the question of

whether black Americans interact at closer distances than white Americans has

been studied. Developmental studies show that when entering elementary school,

black children may exhibit closer interaction distances than white children, but by

the fifth grade, these differences are minimized; and by age 16, black Americans

tend to maintain greater conversational distances (Aiello & Thompson, 1980;

Halberstadt, 1985). Obviously, the racial composition of the schools and the socio-

economic class of the students will also play an important role in determining com-

fortable interaction distances. Most studies reveal that interactions involving black

and white communicators occur at greater distances than those involving persons

of the same race. Another large cultural group in the United States, Hispanic

Americans, has also been observed. These studies generally support the prediction

that Hispanic Americans interact at closer distances than do Anglo Americans.

Scherer (1974) contended that any differences between blacks and whites, and pre-

sumably also Hispanic Americans, may be confounded by socioeconomic factors

not attributable to ethnic background. This study found that middle-class children

maintained greater conversational distance than lower-class children, but there

were no differences between middle-class blacks and whites or lower-class blacks

and whites. Because proxemic norms are learned, it is reasonable to assume that

people who grow up in the same neighborhood—no matter what their skin color

or ethnic heritage—will share more expectations for comfortable conversational

distance than those raised in different parts of a city, state, or country.

TOPIC OR SUBJECT MATTER

Erickson (1975) wanted to find out if proxemic shifts forward or backward were

associated with any other events in a conversation. By coding co-occurring behav-

ior, he determined that proxemic shifts may mark important segments of the

encounter, such as beginnings, endings, and topic changes.

Earlier we noted that in his efforts to examine the limits of conversational dis-

tance, Sommer tried to use impersonal topics that would presumably not influence

the distances chosen. For intimates, personal topics may demand less conversa-

tional distance unless other factors, such as an impersonal setting, neutralize such

inclinations. Leipold’s (1963) work demonstrates how anticipated treatment of the

same general topic can influence conversational distance. Students entered a room

and were given either a negative comment (“Your grade is poor, and you have not

done your best”); praise (“You are doing very well, and Mr. Leipold wants to talk

to you further”); or a neutral comment (“Mr. Leipold is interested in your feelings

about the introductory course”). Students given the negative comment sat farthest

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 139

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

from the experimenter; those who were praised sat closest. Following insults, peo-

ple may want to assume a greater distance than they normally would with that

person, particularly if the person giving the insult is perceived as a higher-status

person (O’Neal, Brunalt, Carifio, Troutwine, & Epstein, 1980). Regardless of

topic, very close distances may result in generally less talking (Schulz & Barefoot,

1974).

SETTING FOR THE INTERACTION

Obviously, the social setting makes a great deal of difference in how far we stand

from others in conversation. A crowded cocktail party demands a different distance

than a comfortable evening in the living room with a spouse or significant other.

Lighting, temperature, noise, and available space affect interaction distance. Some

authors have hypothesized that as room size increases, people tend to sit closer

together. Noisy urban street locations outside an office building may prompt peo-

ple to stand closer to one another than they do when conversing inside the build-

ing. And if the setting is perceived as formal or unfamiliar, we would predict

greater distances from unknown others and closer distances to known others.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Height seems to make a difference in the distance people select for interacting. Irre-

spective of sex, shorter individuals seem to invite smaller interpersonal distances

than taller individuals (Caplan & Goldman, 1981). When the two communicators

are vastly different in height, the distance has to be adjusted so faces can be seen.

Evidence also indicates that obese people are accorded greater interaction distances

(Lerner, Venning, & Knapp, 1975).

Studies by Kleck (1969) and Kleck and Strenta (1985) showed that people

interacting with stigmatized individuals (a left-leg amputation was simulated with

a special wheelchair) choose greater initial speaking distances than with nonstigma-

tized persons, but that this distance decreases as the length of the interaction

increases. Similar results have been found for perceived epileptics and people with

facial disfigurations such as scars and port-wine stains. Kleck points out that when

people with physical disabilities expect others to behave in a distant manner, they

may prepare themselves for such reactions and thereby increase the chances it will

happen.

ATTITUDINAL AND EMOTIONAL ORIENTATION

Some experiments have been conducted by telling a person that he or she was

going to interact with a person who was either “warm and friendly”or

“unfriendly.”Not surprisingly, greater distances were chosen when interacting

with a person perceived to be unfriendly. Similarly, when told to enter into conver-

sation with another person and to behave in a friendly way, people chose closer

distances than when told to “let him/her know you aren’t friendly.”This friendly/

unfriendly relationship to distance seems to manifest itself even with preschool chil-

dren (King, 1966). In some instances, our anger will cause us to withdraw from

140 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

others, but if we seek retaliation, we may increase proximity (Meisels & Dosey,

1971).

Variations in our emotional states, such as depression, fatigue, excitement, or

joy, can sometimes make vast differences in how close or far away we want to be

from others. The traumatic experiences of abused children probably explain why

they assumed significantly greater conversational distances than their nonabused

peers in one study (Vranic, 2003). This was true for males and females and was

exacerbated by frontal approaches by males. A study reported by Patterson (1968)

indicates that we may make a variety of interpersonal judgments about others

based on distance. People were told to interview others and secretly rate them on

traits of friendliness, aggressiveness, dominance, extraversion, and intelligence. The

interviewees were actually confederates who approached the interviewers at differ-

ent distances and gave standard answers to the questions asked. The mean ratings

for all the traits at four different distances were tabulated, and they revealed that

the most distant position yielded significantly lower, less favorable ratings. So bar-

ring any contradictory information, people choosing closer distances are often seen

as warmer, more likeable, more empathic, and more understanding. When we seek

to win another’s approval, we reduce conversational distance as opposed to

instances when we are deliberately trying to avoid approval. Females seeking

approval maintained a mean distance of 57 inches; those trying to avoid approval

averaged 94 inches. When the distance was held constant at 5 feet, approval-

seekers compensated by smiling more and engaging in more gestural activity

(Rosenfeld, 1965, 1966).

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

A number of studies also show that conversational distance varies as a function of

our relationship with the other person. Strangers begin conversations at a greater

distance than acquaintances, and acquaintances are a bit more distant than friends.

In a study of 108 married couples, husbands were asked to walk toward their

wives and stop when they got to a comfortable conversational distance. The more

dissatisfied the husbands were with their marriage, the greater the distance they

chose (Crane, Dollahite, Griffin, & Taylor, 1987). Preschoolers seem to be able to

use distance as a criterion for determining liking or disliking. Like adults, children

seem to maintain greater distances with unknown adults, unfriendly or threatening

persons, teachers, and endomorphs (i.e., those with a heavyset body type).

These and other studies suggest that closer relationships are likely to be associ-

ated with closer interaction distances. Obviously, there is a point at which we

would not expect interactants to get any closer, no matter how close their relation-

ship. And even people who are very close will not always interact at close distances

due to the ebb and flow of their relationship.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS

Much has been written about the influence of introversion and extraversion on

spatial relationships. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, but the bulk of

the evidence seems to indicate that introverts tend to stand farther away than

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 141

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

extroverts and to generally prefer greater interpersonal distances. Other studies

suggest that anxiety-prone individuals maintain greater distances, but closer dis-

tances are seen when people have a high self-concept and affiliative needs or when

they are low on authoritarianism, high on interdependence, and “self-directed.”

People with various personality abnormalities can probably be counted on to

show greater non-normative spatial behavior, choosing interactive distances both

too far away and too close.

In addition to studying human spatial behavior in high-density situations and

in conversation, some researchers have examined such questions in the context of

small groups, particularly in regard to seating patterns.

SEATING BEHAVIOR AND SPATIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN SMALL GROUPS

People will select a place to sit on a long-term basis, such as returning to the same

seat again and again in a course they are taking in college, or on a short-term basis,

such as when they go to a movie theatre. Regarding the long term, as you might

have guessed from your own behavior, college students tend to prefer a particular

seat in a classroom and experience greater feelings of comfort, confidence, and

being in control when they are able to return to it (Avni-Babad, 2011). Okubo

(2010) wanted to explore whether short-term sitting preferences among partici-

pants varied as a function of handedness. Right-handed participants (but not

mixed-handed or left-handed participants) tended to prefer seats in the movie the-

atre that were to the right of the screen, but only when they were motivated to see

the movie.

Interest in seating arrangements extends beyond the academic world to real-

world settings, including medicine, business, and education (Li & Robertson, 2011;

Robson, Kimes, Becker, & Evans, 2011; van den Berg, Segers, & Cillessen, 2012).

For example, owners of restaurants probably do not want their patrons to sit at

tables that are too close to other tables when they know that these people want to

have a romantic night out (Robson et al., 2011). On the other hand, educators

might consider having grade-school children who do not get along sit closer to each

other in the classroom, as this may promote liking and lead to fewer problems

related to victimization (van den Berg et al., 2012).

The specific body of work dealing with seating behavior and spatial arrange-

ments in small groups is known as small group ecology. What is clear from this

research is that our seating behavior is not generally accidental or random. Expla-

nations for why we select a particular seat in relation to the other person or per-

sons vary according to the task at hand, the degree of relationship between the

interactants, the personalities of the two parties, and the amount and kind of

space available. We can summarize the findings about seating behavior and spatial

positioning under the following categories:

•Leadership

•Dominance

•Task

•Sex and acquaintance

•Introversion–extraversion

142 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

LEADERSHIP

It seems to be a norm, in the United States at least, that leaders are expected to be

found at the head or foot of the table. In households in which the husband is con-

sidered the head of the household, he is likely to be found sitting at one end of a

rectangular dinner table. Elected group leaders generally put themselves in the

head positions at rectangular tables, and the other group members try to position

themselves so they can see the leader. In mock jury deliberations, the man seated

on the end position is more likely to be chosen as the leader. The reaction to

women who are positioned at the head of a table of men and women has, in the

past, been less consistently linked to the leadership role (Porter & Geis, 1981). As

long as the group consisted of all women, the one at the head of the table was per-

ceived as the leader. With the recent growth of women in positions of leadership in

business and government, we would expect women seated at the end position in

groups of men and women to be more consistently chosen as the leader, too.

Howells and Becker (1962) added further support to the idea that a person’s

position in a group is an important factor in leadership emergence. They reasoned

that spatial position determines the flow of communication, which in turn deter-

mines leadership emergence. Five-person decision-making groups were examined:

Three people sat on one side of a rectangular table, and two sat on the other side.

Because previous work suggested that communication usually flows across the

table rather than around it, the researchers predicted that the side with two people

would be able to influence the most people, or at least talk more, and therefore

emerge more often as group leaders. This hypothesis was confirmed. An experi-

ment by Ward (1968) helps unravel how seating position can create leaders. Col-

lege males were assigned at random to sit in particular seats at a round table. The

experimenters arranged it so that more people were seated around one half of the

table than the other; only two people sat at the less populated end, and these two

seats were considered visually central because their occupants would receive more

undivided gaze from people at the other, more densely occupied end. As predicted,

occupants of these visually central seats received higher ratings of leadership after

discussions had taken place. But were they really leaders or just perceived to be?

Other research (Taylor & Fiske, 1975) does indicate that the person on whom atten-

tion is centered will appear to be an initiator and a person causally responsible for

the course of the conversation. But in Ward’s study, evidence indicated that those

who were visually central actually behaved differently: They talked more. It would

be interesting to unravel further the complex routes by which seating position might

affect leadership. For example, does the visually central person think, “I’minacen-

tral position; I’d better start acting like a leader”? Or do the attention and subtle

cues of the other members of the group trigger leadership behaviors, perhaps without

the visually central person even realizing it? People seem well aware of the different

perceptions and communicative potentials associated with different seating positions.

When people were asked to select seats to convey different impressions, they chose

end positions to convey leadership or dominance; positions with the closest distances

to convey interpersonal attraction; and seats that afforded the greatest interpersonal

distance, and the least visual accessibility vis-à-vis the end positions, to indicate they

did not wish to participate (Reiss & Rosenfeld, 1980).

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 143

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

DOMINANCE

The end positions also seem to carry a status or dominance factor. Russo (1967)

found that people rating various seating arrangements on an “equality”dimension

stated that one person seated at the head and one on the side indicated more unequal

status than if they were seated side by side or both on the ends. In an analysis of

talking frequency in small groups, Hare and Bales (1963) noted that people in posi-

tions 1, 3, and 5 (see figure) were frequent talkers. Subsequent studies revealed that

these people were likely to be dominant personalities, whereas those who avoided

the central or focal positions by choosing seats 2 and 4 were more anxious and

actually stated they wanted to stay out of the discussion. These self-selection effects

demonstrate the importance of conducting randomized studies, such as Ward’s

(1968) study mentioned earlier. We do not know whether the communication of non-

dominant persons placed in focal positions would radically change their behavior.

Positions 1, 3, and 5 also were considered positions of leadership, but leader-

ship of different types, depending on the position. The two end positions, positions

1 and 5, attracted task-oriented leaders, whereas the middle positions attracted

socioemotional leaders, those concerned about group relationships and getting

everyone to participate.

TASK

The tasks performed in a courtroom are especially important to a defendant, particu-

larly the testimony of witnesses against him or her. In 2006, the two primary defendants

in the collapse of the Enron Corporation, Skilling and Lay, petitioned the court to give

them the ability to face their accusers by moving them from a table that obstructed their

view of the witnesses. By law, defendants have a right to face their accusers, a condition

that presumably has a positive effect on truthtelling.Seatingpreferencesofstudents

and nonstudents engaged in the accomplishment of different tasks have also been stud-

ied (Cook, 1970; Sommer, 1969). In each case, people were asked to imagine sitting at

atablewithasame-sexfriendineachofthefollowingfoursituations:

1. Conversation. Sitting and chatting for a few minutes before class, or before

work for nonstudents

2. Cooperation. Sitting and studying together for the same exam, or sitting doing

a crossword together, or some similar activity for nonstudents

3. Coaction. Sitting studying for different exams, or sitting at the same table

reading for nonstudents

4. Competition. Competing to see who will be the first to solve a series of puzzles

Each person was shown a round table and a rectangular table. Each table had six

chairs. The combined results for all the groups surveyed in these two studies are

presented in Table 5-1 for rectangular tables and Table 5-2 for circular tables.

There are many similarities among the different groups concerning their order of

preference. Conversations before class or work involved primarily corner or “short”

opposite seating at rectangular tables and side-by-side seating at round tables. Coop-

eration seems to elicit a preponderance of side-by-side choices. Coaction—that is,

studying for different exams or reading at the same table—necessitated plenty

of room between the participants, and the most distant seating positions were

generally selected. Most participants wanted to compete in an opposite seating

144 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

arrangement. However, some students wanted to establish a closer opposite rela-

tionship; apparently this would afford them an opportunity to see how the other

person was progressing and would also allow them to use various gestures, body

movements, and eye contact to upset their opponents. The more distant opposite

position would presumably prevent less spying.

SEX AND ACQUAINTANCE

The nature of a relationship may make a difference in spatial orientation and hence

in seating selection. Cook (1970) conducted a questionnaire study and obtained

some observational data of people interacting in a restaurant and several bars.

People in the questionnaire study were asked to select seating arrangements in the

following situations:

•Sitting with a casual friend of the same sex

•Sitting with a casual friend of the opposite sex

•Sitting with a boyfriend or girlfriend

The predominant seating pattern, as stated by questionnaire respondents using

a bar as a referent, was corner seating x

xfor the same-sex friends and casual

friends of the opposite sex. However, intimate friends appear to require side-

by-side seating xx . In a restaurant, both nonintimate relationship categories

selected predominantly opposite seating

x

, but as intimacy increased, other types

of seating became more acceptable. Some very practical reasons may be

TABLE 5-1 SEATING PREFERENCES AT RECTANGULAR TABLES

x

xx

x

Conversation 45% 36% 12% 1% 4% 2%

Cooperation 23 13 42 8 10 4

Coaction 8 8 10 21 34 19

Competition 6 22 7 40 19 6

TABLE 5-2 SEATING PREFERENCES AT ROUND TABLES

x

xx

x

Conversation 60% 27% 13%

Cooperation 68 13 19

Coaction 18 32 50

Competition 12 23 65

Source: (Tables 5-1 and 5-2) From “Experiments in orientation and proxemics”by M. Cook, Human Relations

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 145

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

offered for opposite seating in restaurants. For instance, other patrons will not have

to sit opposite you, which might create some uncomfortable situations with respect

to eye contact and overheard conversation. In addition, you will not poke the other

person with your elbow while eating. Actual observations of seating in a restaurant,

presented in Table 5-3, seem to validate the questionnaire responses. Most people do

select opposite seating in restaurants. However, the observations of people sitting

in bars do not agree with the questionnaire study of seating preferences in bars (see

Table 5-4). Although questionnaire preferences favored corner seating, actual obser-

vations show a marked preference for side-by-side seating. Cook suggests this may

have been because the bars he studied were equipped with many seats located against

TABLE 5-3 OBSERVATIONS OF SEATING BEHAVIOR IN A RESTAURANT

x

xx x

x

Two males 6 0 0

Two females 6 0 1

Male with female 36 7 1

Total 48 7 2

TABLE 5-4 OBSERVATIONS OF SEATING BEHAVIOR IN THREE BARS

x

xx

Bar A

Two males 7 8 13

Male with female 6 4 21

Total 13 12 34

Bar B

Two males 1 0 9

Male with female 4 3 20

Total 5 3 29

Bar C

Two males 0 11 7

Male with female 1 4 10

Total 1 15 17

Overall

Two males 8 19 29

Male with female 11 11 51

Total 19 30 80

Source: (Tables 5-3 and 5-4) From “Experiments in orientation and proxemics”by M. Cook, Human Relations

146 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

the wall. Supposedly this allowed persons to sit side by side, not have their backs to

anyone, and have a good view of the other patrons. Thus, paper-and-pencil prefer-

ences were overruled by environmental factors. Nevertheless, this study allows us to

conclude that the person’ssexandhisorheracquaintancewiththeotherpersondo

have an effect on his or her actual and preferred seating position.

INTROVERSION–EXTRAVERSION

We have already discussed the possible influence of introversion and extraversion

on conversational distance. Some evidence indicates that this personality variable

also affects seating preferences. Extraverts are likely to choose to sit opposite of

others, either across the table or down the length of it, and disregard positions

that would put them at an angle to another person. Extraverts may also choose

positions that would put them in close physical proximity to another person. Intro-

verts generally choose positions that would keep them more at a distance, visually

and physically, from others.

CONCLUSION

Adiscussionoftheshapeofthenegotiatingtableatthe1968Parispeacetalksthat

attempted to end the Vietnam War is a most appropriate way to conclude this

chapter. It incorporates elements of territoriality and seating arrangements that

FIGURE 5-5

Proposals for a table to be used at the Paris peace talks, 1968.

by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 147

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

are influenced by culture, attitudes, leadership perceptions, and the type of task

undertaken. It took negotiators 8 months just to reach an agreement on the shape of

the table. The diagrams in Figure 5-5 mark the chronology of the seating proposals.

The United States (U.S.) and South Vietnam (S.V.) wanted a seating arrangement in

which only two sides were identified. They did not want to recognize the National Lib-

eration Front (NLF) as an equal party in the negotiations. North Vietnam (N.V.) and

the NLF wanted equal status given to all parties, represented by a four-sided table. The

final arrangement was such that both parties could claim “victory.”The round table

minus the dividing lines allowed North Vietnam and NLF to claim all four delegations

were equal. The existence of the two secretarial tables (interpreted as dividers), the lack

of identifying symbols on the table, and an AA, BB speaking rotation permitted the

United States and South Vietnam to claim victory for the two-sided approach. Consid-

ering the lives lost during the 8 months needed to arrive at the seating arrangement, we

must certainly conclude that proximity and territoriality are far from trivial concerns in

some human encounters. (McCroskey, Larson, & Knapp, 1971, p. 98)

SUMMARY

Our perceptions and use of space contribute

extensively to the various communication out-

comes we seek. Some of our spatial behavior is

related to a need to stake out and maintain terri-

tory, and territorial behavior can be helpful in

regulating social interaction and controlling den-

sity; it can also be the source of conflict when

territory is disputed or encroached upon without

permission. We identified three different types of

territories—primary,secondary, and public—and

several different levels at which territorial behav-

ior exists: individual,group,community, and

nation. Although we often think people vigor-

ously defend their territory, the type of defense

depends very much on who the intruder is, why

the intrusion is taking place, what type of

territory is being intruded upon, what type

of intrusion occurs—violation,invasion,or

contamination—how long the intrusion takes,

and where it occurs. We often try to prevent peo-

ple from moving into our territory by marking it

as “ours.”This can be achieved by our physical

presence, the presence of a friend who agrees to

watch our territory, or by using markers—fences,

coats, and the like—or a special kind of lan-

guage. When someone does invade another per-

son’s territory, we sometimes find the “owner’s”

physiological arousal increased, and various

defensive maneuvers may be used, such as flight,

hostile looks, turning or leaning away, blocking

advances with objects or hands and arms, and

verbal behavior. Just as people do not like others

to invade their territory, we also find they are

reluctant to invade the territory of others, often

apologizing when it cannot be prevented.

We examined density and crowding in both

animal and human interaction. Some animal

studies showed undesirable effects from overpop-

ulation. High-density human situations, how-

ever, are not always disruptive; sometimes we

want the company of many people. The best pre-

dictor of individually stressful and socially unde-

sirable outcomes seems to be the number of

people per room rather than other density mea-

sures. When people do feel the stress of a

crowded situation, they seek ways to cope with

it. We also distinguished between density, or the

number of people per unit of space, and crowd-

ing, a feeling brought on by the environment,

personal, or social factors. Our examination of

spatial behavior in conversations revealed many

ways of conceptualizing and measuring this

behavior. As a result, some generalizations

about conversational space remain tentative.

We do know that each of us seeks a comfortable

conversational distance that varies depending

on age, sex, cultural and ethnic background,

setting, attitudes, emotions, topics, physical

148 PART II THE COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

characteristics, personality, and our relationship

with the other person. We also know that con-

versational distance changes during the course of

a conversation. Finally, we discussed seating

arrangements in small groups. Distances and

seats chosen do not seem to be accidental.

Leaders and dominant personalities tend to

choose specific seats, but seating position also

can determine a person’s role in a group. Seating

also varies with the topic at hand, the nature of

the relationships among the parties, and certain

personality variables.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Identify a secondary territory you have experi-

enced in which ownership was disputed. Dis-

cuss what happened, why it happened, and

how the conflict could have been prevented.

2. What factors are likely to cause a person

who comes to the United States from another

culture, with different norms for conversa-

tional space, to maintain the norms from

his or her culture of origin? What factors

are likely to cause an immigrant to manifest

conversational space that is more typical of

the United States?

3. When is a woman’s purse likely to be per-

ceived as a primary territory? When can it

become a secondary territory?

4. Do you think the findings associated with

leadership, dominance, and seating behavior

apply to females as well as males? Why or

why not?

5. The next time you are walking with two

other people, note the spatial arrangement

of the group. Does this pattern change

when the age, status, or gender composition

of the group changes?

CHAPTER 5THE EFFECTS OF TERRITORY AND PERSONAL SPACE ON HUMAN COMMUNICATION 149

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has

deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.